<brent> present?

Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions

<inserted> scribenick: manu

dmitriz: Introducing Mitzi Laszlo - Solid Community Manager -- examples of W3C Groups that have good process/moderation... I recommended this group.

mitzi: I'm really interested to hear how you run the meeting, looking to listen and learn. :)

<stonematt> scribe: Yancy

Unassigned issues

<inserted> scribenick: Yancy

stone: now unassigned issues
... there are several unassigned from last week

<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee

<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/419

David: suggesting should be put back into presentation

joe: the one I was going to pickup was 414

brent: to clarify most people thought holderID was a terrible idea

stone: needs an assignee and decide if it's a cr blocker

david: volunteers

stone: 414 is expected to be assigned to brent
... now assigned

brent: doesn't know if it's a CR blocker

davidc: thinks we should close them
... thinks we can close 408

<JoeAndrieu> david chadwick: if you are ok with the close, please comment on the issue.

davidc: thinks we can close 405

<JoeAndrieu> you opened some of those, so if you think they are addressed, that's usually a good indicator

stone: lets take that one offline

davidc: 408 is solve by manu

stone: it's not linked to pr either
... that one isn't a cr blocker

manu: in agreement

stone: reminder in IRC about intros. anyone new?

Introductions - revisited

<Justin_R> @manu vitruviusly

charles: works for consensus and is a long time w3c member and plans to be in barcelona maybe only the 2nd day

justin: introduces himself and says hello

andre: been with w3c for a few years. Involved mostly with identity work and linked data and looking forward to barcelona

stone: thanks and welcome

ned_smith: new to to the group from intel and doing work in identity

burn: calling in from parking lot (one of those days). welcome!

Stone: also says welcome

Wide review

stone: coming to the end of the deadline
... one step calls for a wide review
... show evidence of community review
... there's also a sentence about going to announce using an email
... our discussion point is part of a wide review. What's the real obligation?

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to talk about wide review

charles: has been through this many times. 1) community and developer review from others in the community
... 2) needs sign-off on accessibility issues which involves asking 5 groups if there are any issues
... prove this is more than just email. it can take a little bit of time because there may not be an expert in this area.

stone: has gone to a horizontal review from ping and groups like those. we have github issues with them and have had replies.
... not hearing a big lift

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note we're ready for horiz review...

manu: thinks we are ready for the most part
... bits and pieces in the docs that need more polish
... nothing is going to change the spec in my opinion
... getting close to our charter end, but sees no reason why we shouldn't start the wide review

<kaz> fyi, VCWG charter

burn: already asked for the review from the mentioned groups by charles

<chaals> [+1 to Manu - and with any luck there is nothing surprising to the horizontal groups that causes them issues, which make sit easy to move on]

burn: let the groups know we have these new features for cr

<manu> yes, no new features! No massive changes! :)

burn: with respect to the timing wants to make sure the group is aware that administrative extension does not mean the pressure is off

kaz: asked internal accessibility for review based on draft.
... we should finish the CR publication so we should have more discussion this week

burn: understands that if the doc is one that's agreed to publish the most recent document is in github

<manu> +1 to ask reviewers to review latest ED.

<stonematt> +1 to ED as review target

burn: wants to remind people there is still one to two weeks time to get stuff published

<stonematt> get to CR tasks: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRGJ2H4fVJDSt9G0KWhBQQiIvuB2lSRiVe5ABJcebDo_Pe-alOVtJXccjzf_dcU1tiyW2QcM0x1Y9jh/pubhtml?gid=1319152806&single=true

burn: can't just say on march 30th we're ready to publish. want to remind people the process to get to CR before the end of march means we need to get to all blockers way before that

kaz: using the github version is good and nice
... but maybe we should create a concrete tag/branch or a static version for the review?

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest adding change history (for humans) to the github draft

charles: no static copy is needed. it's ok to just say hey look at the current state. useful to have a change log/
... they just need a document that's up to date for groups reviewing

kaz: if we don't make big changes, that's fine

burn: remember we have review blockers and cr blockers. review blockers are major but CR blockers are not major and at that level.

stone: on track to call for wide review
... set us up to review external comment

F2F

stone: next topic is face to face, hopefully we'll having something to work on

<stonematt> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G1ygbZMI5nJB94ROuX-Vtic4FgbeYl-S58E_DoXa7-w/edit#gid=913829325

stone: list of participants is growing and it's a large group
... there are a few we don't recognize. if there are those that people know the unidentified individuals please contact the chair

manu: food costs going up
... going around and request that larger organizations chip in
... heads up we may be contacting you

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note donations for food.

davidc: doesn't know where the location is

<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-claims/tree/master/f2f/2019-03-Barcelona

burn: it's on the info page

stone: topic ideas. we haven't started the discussion of planning our days.
... ideally we would be done with CR and CR might not be out yet.
... the question is, what do we talk about?

davidc: what about future work items for the group

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest topics -- CR changes, test suite, registries and to suggest re-chartering

<gannan> +1 to discussing future work items as DavidC mentioned

manu: couple of topics. things are raised like we need to put this in, and now we need to go through another CR.
... test suite and how it's being done. The good news is that oliver and brent and ken and dave longley got together last week.
... there is the topic of registries, questions around are raised around terms of use and refresh.
... where does we have a spec where does the work happen to extend it and do it in a way that doesn't break anything or create a funky power dynamic
... some ask for people to station keep the spec in the community group and I think we should have a discussion around that
... do we want to sit back for two years and then recharter
... DID working group has gone out and how do we want to fit into that

joe: we should spend some time talking about the use case document
... even though we are running out of time

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to also note Vocabulary docs, and Best Practices

burn: the implementation guide is lacking and that's the thing we can spend quality time on and have a more complete understanding of what should go in doc

manu: thinks we are calling it a best practices document
... been using gregs tools to auto generate and we need to start assigning editors

<chaals> [+1 to implementation experience, and guidance, as important topics]

manu: we should also set aside some time for implementors and conforming with the testsuite

stone: great list and nice start. thanks you.
... this document is open
... if you think of something in the next few days, add it to the list
... if you have a strong opinion about what to add please add, also if there are things that are optional please indicate

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to discuss a note about the days' schedules

joe: in our work with local host, dinner place doesn't happen until 9, so we
... we'll go from 10-7
... thinks all of us will need to adjust to that schedule

stone: that's our long afternoon break and will call it siesta

<chaals> [+1 to matching local time]

PR review

stone: next item on agenda is pr blockers or pr review

<stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/384

manu: perf tradeoff 384. long list/changes and trying to respond to his concerns. it will take a while but in process

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/412

manu: 412 needs dlongley to take a look and davidc to look at it to make sure concerns are addressed
... creates new jsonld context for use
... broke out into seperate jsonld context not in vc context or vocabulary. I want everyone to be aware of design pattern.
... details like don't archive, this cred is only used for subject, goes into it's own vocab in json-ld context but not required for conforming

davidc: did review before meeting. subject that was a property now becomes way more complex but not only optional but suggestion

<stonematt> +1 TallTed

ted: going way past vocab

<brent> +1 TallTed

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note "not downgraded"

tallted: this is going beyond a data model. lets focus on making a data model

manu: +1
... no new normative text, it's just expressing it is the only thing suggested by pr
... to davidc point, it's on option in the testsuite
... if we insist it's subject only it will get ripped out

<stonematt> implementors list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SzfAUA0J72-1BORHJEmY4cdZrQ6vmKy4oq_24r_NwB4/edit#gid=0

stone: reduce the risk of feature at risk
... time bound, anything else left

manu: needs judgment call on this

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/415

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/420

manu: lifecycle editions (420) is progressing.
... will do that and respond

<kaz> [adjourned]