14:13:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:13:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-did-irc
14:13:12 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:13:14 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:13:24 <ivan> Meeting: DID Working Group Telco
14:13:24 <ivan> Chair: burn
14:13:24 <ivan> Date: 2020-03-17
14:13:24 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Mar/0014.html
14:13:24 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-03-17: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2020Mar/0014.html
14:13:25 <ivan> Regrets+ drummond
14:34:00 <burn> burn has joined #did
14:48:16 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
14:52:16 <burn> present+
14:59:03 <chriswinc> present+
14:59:03 <ivan> present+
15:01:25 <rhiaro> present+
15:01:27 <dlongley> present+
15:01:40 <manu> present+
15:02:06 <phila> phila has joined #did
15:02:28 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
15:02:34 <Orie> present+
15:02:49 <yancy> present+
15:02:56 <phila> present+
15:02:58 <rhiaro> scribe+ rhiaro
15:03:02 <brent> brent has joined #did
15:03:10 <brent> present+
15:03:41 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions, Re-introductions
15:04:07 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:04:17 <rhiaro> burn: *outlines agenda*
15:04:23 <ivan> present+ Tom_S_USAA
15:04:26 <dbuc> dbuc has joined #did
15:04:29 <rhiaro> ... Anything anyone wants to add?
15:04:33 <ivan> present+ markus
15:04:46 <jonathan_holt> jonathan_holt has joined #did
15:04:57 <jonathan_holt> present+ jonathan_holt
15:05:00 <joel> joel has joined #did
15:05:08 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #did
15:05:10 <rhiaro> burn: what is happening aorund the world right now is extraordinary, unprecedented in our lifetimes
15:05:18 <selfissued> present+
15:05:21 <dbuc> Luckily we can still argue virtually on GitHub
15:05:21 <joel> present+
15:05:22 <rhiaro> ... we understand that the highest priority for all of us is to focus on health, ourselves and our communities
15:05:31 <rhiaro> ... we know many of you have issues to deal with that will take your time and at unpredictable moments
15:05:36 <dezell> dezell has joined #did
15:05:37 <rhiaro> ... the current plan is to continue the work on a best effort basis
15:05:45 <rhiaro> ... we understand not everyone will be abel to participate at the levels they have been
15:05:46 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
15:05:52 <dezell> present+
15:05:52 <rhiaro> ... lack of participation at this time is not assumed to mean lack of interest
15:05:57 <rhiaro> ... our calls will proceed, but maybe slower
15:06:01 <justin_r> present+
15:06:06 <rhiaro> ... we iwll not push as fast as  possible, but continue to make whatever progress we make
15:06:07 <dbuc> present+
15:06:10 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
15:06:10 <justin_r> q+ to ask about issue timing
15:06:15 <rhiaro> manu: that's great.
15:06:21 <markus_sabadello> present+
15:06:26 <manu> q+
15:06:30 <burn> ack justin_r
15:06:30 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to ask about issue timing
15:06:42 <rhiaro> justin_r: about edits, PRs and issue processing, I'd like to ask about timing
15:06:52 <rhiaro> ... we had rolling 7 day windows, what the official numbers are going to be going forward?
15:07:05 <rhiaro> burn: I don't know there'll be an official change, but unofficially I'll let manu talk to it
15:07:07 <burn> ack manu
15:07:11 <rhiaro> ... absolute windows are not going to work
15:07:27 <rhiaro> manu: the editors still need to meet and figure out exactly if anything is changing. We're going to proceed as is, which means keeping the 7 day windows
15:07:39 <rhiaro> ... the editors have traditionally not merged anything if there's chance we don't have consesnus, we'll still use our best judgement there
15:07:51 <rhiaro> ... we don't want to merge something and someone says they were gone dealing with covid19 stuff and everything changed in the meantime
15:07:56 <rhiaro> ... we don't want that to happen
15:08:11 <rhiaro> ... we haven't heard anyone yet say .. we've got notification from a couple of people that they're going to be unavailable over the next two weeks, but from
15:08:30 <rhiaro> ... [...] other standards efforts. At this point we're not aware of anyoen who will be completely unavaiable for DID for two weeks that we should consider moving that window
15:08:44 <rhiaro> ... but if it happens we'll talk about it as the chairs and editors and as a group and decide whether we need to extend that window
15:08:55 <rhiaro> ... For the time being, since we're all mostly remote, we'll continue as is and use our best judgement
15:09:06 <rhiaro> ... if it seems like merges are resulting in objection we hadn't seen before, we'll probably end up extending those
15:09:26 <rhiaro> ... The other thing of course is that we hope that the editors and nobody else is going to demand that people focus their attention on issues and push them forward
15:09:34 <rhiaro> ... That will not be a good work mode
15:09:37 <rhiaro> ... Give everyone some grace
15:09:43 <rhiaro> ... on responding to issues, don't try to rush things through
15:10:00 <rhiaro> ... then we'll continue to monitor things to make sure that everyone is able to provide input, nobody is being rushed unnecsesarily and everyone is
15:10:06 <rhiaro> ... [...] the rate that they can
15:10:09 <rhiaro> ... That's it
15:10:22 <ivan> present+ identitywoman
15:10:23 <rhiaro> burn: brent, markus?
15:10:51 <burn> Topic: Label etiquette
15:10:56 <rhiaro> ... Do we have anyone on the call [.???]
15:11:03 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:11:08 <markus_sabadello> Sorry I got disconnected :( +1 to everything manu said.
15:11:12 <brent> having audio issues
15:12:06 <ivan> scribe+ manu
15:12:07 <rhiaro> brent: reminder to the group of what the labels are for in github
15:12:18 <rhiaro> ... they are primarily the organsiation and communication mechanism for the editors and the chairs
15:12:30 <rhiaro> ... the editors can add a label to add their opinion on how they feel the issue or PR should be classified
15:12:33 <ivan> present+ dezell
15:12:51 <rhiaro> ... the other editors can go in and see that and then we can all know to that small group what we mean, which allows us ot triage things and move them forward
15:12:57 <rhiaro> ... it would be helpful if nobody else really messed with the labels
15:13:15 <rhiaro> ... when I raised an issue in the VC group I'd try to be helpful and add labels, and get miffed when manu would tak emy labels off and put his own labels on
15:13:23 <rhiaro> ... and I realised I wasn't actually being helpful
15:13:30 <rhiaro> ... If you have question feel free to ask
15:13:37 <rhiaro> ... if you're not an editor or a chair, don't worry abou tthe labels
15:13:40 <rhiaro> burn: any questions?
15:13:50 <burn> Topic: Schedule and Arrange Topic Calls
15:14:14 <rhiaro> burn: we had a topic call yesterday, there are people who have complained about doodle polls every week
15:14:17 <rhiaro> ... there are some pluses and minuses
15:14:29 <rhiaro> ... the polls produce more of an opportunity for those in asia for example to find a time that works for them as well
15:14:32 <selfissued> q+
15:14:36 <rhiaro> ... the chairs do understand that for many people this is a hassle to do this
15:14:52 <burn> ack selfissued
15:15:11 <rhiaro> selfissued: I support the doodle polls because it increases participation and for those who are interste dit only takes one or two minutes, which is nothing compared to the calls so it's a good investment of time
15:15:50 <rhiaro> burn: what the chairs discussed as an option for today is it looks like the past few calls have been occurring at noon US eastern time, 5pm Central Europe, 9am west coast US (though that will change) on Mondays or Thursdays
15:16:01 <rhiaro> ... so the chairs would like to do a straw poll and choose one of the three options
15:16:08 <rhiaro> ... Monday at noon US eastern
15:16:13 <rhiaro> ... Thursday at noon US eastern
15:16:17 <rhiaro> ... Or doodle poll
15:16:28 <burn> Straw poll: Monday at noon US EDT, Thursday at noon US EDT, or Doodle poll
15:16:29 <rhiaro> ... This would be on an ongoing basis, whether we continue using doodle polls or establish one of the other times
15:16:34 <manu> Thursday at noon
15:16:36 <rhiaro> ... Go ahead in IRC
15:16:38 <Orie> Thursday at noon
15:16:43 <selfissued> Thursday noon Eastern
15:16:47 <dlongley> Thursday at noon
15:16:49 <jonathan_holt> Monday at noon US eastern
15:16:51 <ivan> Thursday at noon
15:16:52 <chriswinc> Thursday at noon
15:16:56 <justin_r> noon thurs preferred, noon monday also ok
15:16:58 <rhiaro> Thursday or Monday both fine for me
15:16:59 <joel> Thursday at noon
15:16:59 <brent> doodle poll, can't do thursday at noon
15:17:13 <yancy> *day at noon
15:17:34 <rhiaro> burn: this is until at least the end of march. Europe changes time at the end of march?
15:17:42 <rhiaro> ... we may have to revisit then
15:17:52 <rhiaro> ... thank you, the chairs will discuss and decide what to propose
15:18:09 <burn> Topic: Registry PR and status
15:18:29 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core-registry/pull/14
15:18:37 <manu> s/Registry/Registries/
15:18:47 <rhiaro> Orie: I want people to be aware of the PR, it's been up for longer than 7 days
15:19:01 <rhiaro> ... at this point I feel like it's done, it's a decent starting point, it adds some basic functionality which we've never had before
15:19:03 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/did-core-registry/pull/11
15:19:08 <rhiaro> ... it will help us add properties with confidence to the registries
15:19:19 <manu> We're talking about #11
15:19:28 <rhiaro> ...as the person who is waiting to add lots of properties to the registries, imo muchof the registries content is being held up by this PR
15:19:42 <rhiaro> ... the sooner we can get consensus to approvie it the better. If you have changes you'd like to make I'd like to know
15:19:44 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
15:19:50 <rhiaro> ... if you have an objection, request changes continuously until your objection is met
15:20:22 <rhiaro> ... Both of the PRs are ready to merge
15:20:29 <jonathan_holt> q+
15:20:34 <rhiaro> ... we've had the subsequent registries call which was holding back 14 and we had no objections on that call to the ocntent of 14
15:20:42 <rhiaro> ... similarly for 11 we were holding back on that waiting for reviews
15:20:50 <rhiaro> ... there haven't been objections and it has a significant number of approvals
15:20:54 <ivan> q+
15:21:06 <rhiaro> ... I don't know when we've had consensus, especially on the regstries repo prs becuase people aren't regularly visiting that repo to see them
15:21:17 <rhiaro> burn: we want to make sure people are aware that these are important and founational for us ot move forward. They're blocking future work
15:21:24 <rhiaro> ... Please get comments in right away
15:21:27 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
15:21:30 <rhiaro> ... the editors would like to be able to merge thsi in a couple of days
15:21:43 <rhiaro> jonathan_holt: I have objections about the language
15:21:58 <rhiaro> ... we talked about this on the separate call. I think it's a fundamental discussion we have to have
15:22:13 <Orie> q+
15:22:13 <rhiaro> ... For future interop with other specs
15:22:39 <rhiaro> ... I think we need more discussion to think about the security vulnerabilities  and thew ay the spec can be more interoperable with other methods
15:22:50 <rhiaro> burn:  is this something that has to be done before we can merge these, or can it occur after we get these merged?
15:22:58 <burn> ack ivan
15:23:00 <rhiaro> jonathan_holt: it's specific to URL in JSON-LD, and it's a non-starter for me
15:23:07 <burn> ack Orie
15:23:18 <selfissued> q+
15:23:28 <deiu> present+ Andrei_Sambra
15:23:33 <rhiaro> Orie: the PR is for the JSON only representation, and the JSON-LD representation, that would be adding registry properties for those represntations. I've pinged you jonathan for feedback on the cbor representation
15:23:40 <rhiaro> ... I'd love to see aditionally information or context or something regarding cbor
15:24:07 <rhiaro> ... regarding hyperledger ares scheme, they decided to switch from DID uris to https urls for their specs on a github issues thread I linked previously with a massive amount of debate
15:24:21 <rhiaro> ... they ultimately decided to switch to https urls specifically beecause of the web browsability feature
15:24:28 <rhiaro> ... They chose to migrate to the format we are using
15:24:40 <burn> ack selfissued
15:24:41 <manu> q+ to point to minutes
15:24:51 <Tom_S__-_USAA> Tom_S__-_USAA has joined #did
15:25:02 <Tom_S__-_USAA> present+
15:25:08 <rhiaro> ivan: the only point is as far as I can see 11 and the discussion we had yesterday has quite a lot of influence on the way 14 is shaped
15:25:20 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did
15:25:26 <rhiaro> ... so I am fine merging them one after the other ut I think we should see the results.. pull 14 is the skeleton of the document itself
15:25:42 <rhiaro> ... that document must include statements we have agreement on before this can be merged
15:25:56 <rhiaro> ... or do you want ot merge it firs tand change it afterward? I just want to be sure the document reflects the discussion
15:26:13 <rhiaro> selfissued: for those who were'nt on the special call we took half the call arguing about what kind of links to use to get to human readable specs, and this was for peopl enot for programs or machines
15:26:29 <identitywoman> present+
15:26:30 <rhiaro> ... my memory is everybody but one person though we could use links that are clickable by humans with browsers to read the specs
15:26:47 <rhiaro> ... while jonathan would like some additional stuff, offering support is not practical. I think we should merge it as is
15:27:00 <jonathan_holt> q+
15:27:08 <rhiaro> ... in the future if ipfs etc are resolvable in browsers we'd consider using them, but right now we want develoepers to find specs
15:27:16 <burn> ack manu
15:27:16 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to point to minutes
15:27:20 <manu> Everyone should read the minutes from yesterday (if you have an opinion on this and weren't there): https://www.w3.org/2020/03/16-did-minutes.html
15:27:22 <burn> zakim, close the queue
15:27:22 <Zakim> ok, burn, the speaker queue is closed
15:27:35 <rhiaro> manu: just pointing ot minutes from yesterday, if you were not there and have an opinion, read those before jumping in
15:27:55 <rhiaro> ... orie, I think we should hold a tiny bit on 14 because some of the consensus decision we had from yesterday may impact the language
15:28:01 <rhiaro> ... I may modify the language to apply the decision we had yesterday
15:28:05 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
15:28:27 <rhiaro> jonathan_holt: in short allowing for URI allows a DID URL being the source of the registry and I think it allows for more secure robust framework
15:28:42 <rhiaro> ... regarding the cbor stuff, has anyone read my whitepaper at rwot? I wanted feedback to push that forward, would be appreicated before making PRs
15:28:58 <Orie> jonathan_holt, please open issues or comment on PRs. if you want reviews from this group.
15:29:09 <Orie> i'm happy to review on an issue
15:29:16 <rhiaro> burn: right now there's not overwhelming support for jonathan_holt's position. that's goingto leave me and the chairs to suggest merging and continue the discussion aftwards
15:29:25 <rhiaro> ... think really carefully about what really needs to hold up the work at this point
15:29:26 <burn> zakim, open the queue
15:29:26 <Zakim> ok, burn, the speaker queue is open
15:29:30 <burn> Topic: Issue status check
15:29:41 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:29:43 <manu> q+
15:29:44 <rhiaro> burn: this is a walkthrough of our standard issues
15:29:45 <Orie> jonathan_holt https://github.com/w3c/did-core-registry/issues/5 feel free to ask for a review on this issue.
15:29:46 <burn> q?
15:29:51 <burn> ack manu
15:30:03 <rhiaro> manu: in the did-core spec there were a number of PRs that need reviews, please review those
15:30:43 <rhiaro> burn: going through to see what athe status is
15:30:46 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/176
15:30:47 <rhiaro> ... first I see is 176
15:30:57 <rhiaro> ... selfissued?
15:31:12 <rhiaro> ... the next 5 are assigned to you
15:31:39 <rhiaro> selfissued: this is one of a set of things where most of them should be removed
15:31:48 <rhiaro> ... statements that are not actionable
15:31:58 <ivan> q+
15:32:06 <rhiaro> burn: sometimes removing things are appropriate, sometimes it's not appropriate to remove things because you're not sure how to word it
15:32:15 <rhiaro> ... if you really believe that no statement like that belongs in it, make a PR to remove it
15:32:21 <burn> q?
15:32:22 <rhiaro> ... if you believe it should say more, please make a proposal for what it should say
15:32:29 <rhiaro> selfissued: I'll re-read it and make a PR
15:32:30 <burn> ack ivan
15:32:46 <rhiaro> ivan: a genearl comment. I understand that the normative text shouldn't be [??]
15:32:58 <burn> q+
15:33:00 <rhiaro> ... on the other hand having remarks in the text that makes the spec more readable and connect to the reader to other things I find it useful
15:33:02 <rhiaro> ... as a reader
15:33:16 <rhiaro> ... the way we can do that is declare certain areas or certain paragraphs as being non normative
15:33:23 <rhiaro> ... we can put them in NOTES which are automatically non normative
15:33:39 <rhiaro> ... I would prefer to consider not to remove these things because they can be useful
15:33:44 <rhiaro> ... but turn them into non normative
15:33:50 <rhiaro> selfissued: it's already non normative becausae it's security considerations
15:34:04 <rhiaro> ... I'll read it and see if I can make it more [??]. My reques twa snot to remove it, but to substantiate the statement
15:34:08 <burn> ack burn
15:34:09 <rhiaro> ... I'll re-read it
15:34:12 <ivan> s/becausae/because/
15:34:17 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:34:21 <dmitriz> present+
15:34:26 <rhiaro> burn: yes, the security considerations section is a special one. we've been encouraged to information in that is even our opinion
15:34:37 <rhiaro> ... sometimes things which we can not provide a specific action for but we can suggest general thinking about
15:34:47 <rhiaro> ... it's still encouraged by the privacy and security interest groups to do that
15:34:53 <rhiaro> ... they may not all be as perfect as you'd like
15:35:12 <rhiaro> ... I understand that you may not be an expert. It is helpful to kick things off with you having a concrete proposal so thank you for agreeing to do that
15:35:18 <rhiaro> selfissued: I'll try to do them before the next call
15:35:24 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/178
15:35:50 <rhiaro> selfissued: this one is different
15:36:24 <rhiaro> ... suggesting that people combine timestamps with signatures may be a nice opinion but if we're going to say that there should be a statement following it saying for example you coudl use a, b, c. It's not actionalbe, it's saying do something without saying how
15:36:35 <rhiaro> ... if someone things you'd want to do that, they should own writing the for example statement
15:36:38 <rhiaro> ... I don't know what's being asked
15:37:12 <rhiaro> burn: orie provided an example, someone just needs to add text
15:37:15 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/179
15:37:16 <rhiaro> ... next is 179
15:37:32 <rhiaro> ... this is a discussion question that you're asking
15:37:50 <rhiaro> ... someone may have a response. if you'd like to suggest something that would be helpful
15:37:56 <ivan> s/reques twa snot to remove it/request was not to remove it/
15:37:57 <rhiaro> selfissued: I think this is bad practice
15:38:16 <rhiaro> ... you could do notifications if you registered for them, other than polling
15:38:25 <rhiaro> burn: I suggest you write what you would propose instead and then create a PR
15:38:34 <rhiaro> selfissued: I was hoping somebody who wrote this text would speak up and say why they wrote it
15:38:44 <rhiaro> ... I can do what you suggest but there are probably people who know why this text is there
15:38:50 <justin_r> q+ to suggest handling these kinds of things
15:38:56 <rhiaro> burn: we'll see if we get some discussion on it
15:39:11 <rhiaro> ... expressing alternatives in the issue is more helpful
15:39:30 <burn> q?
15:39:33 <burn> ack justin_r
15:39:34 <Zakim> justin_r, you wanted to suggest handling these kinds of things
15:39:36 <rhiaro> selfissued: I'll say I want whoever wrote this to speak up and say why, and how I'd do it instead
15:40:05 <rhiaro> justin_r: just a quick note, process on [??] it's often very helpful to simply make a PR that takes an action on the text and that can include being like I'm just going to delete this text
15:40:10 <rhiaro> ... because there's no justification for it
15:40:11 <dlongley> q+
15:40:34 <rhiaro> ... that kind of thing can in a helpful way force the group and the editors to look at text they might not have looked at for quite some time, realising we don't need it any more or we didn't mean that to be there
15:40:41 <rhiaro> ... along the lines of what dan has been saying
15:41:02 <rhiaro> ... it's really helpful to create a PR against the text, even if it does something potentially destructive, to say if this were gone what does that mean
15:41:05 <rhiaro> ... ti helps unstick things
15:41:07 <burn> ack dlongley
15:41:08 <rhiaro> burn: thank you
15:41:11 <dlongley> https://w3c.github.io/did-core/#notification-of-did-document-changes
15:41:12 <justin_r> s/ti/it/
15:41:29 <rhiaro> dlongley: if you go the spec where this is quoted, there are 3 points, the first covers the descriptions which is the option mike is talking about
15:41:36 <rhiaro> ... the second option is if subscriptions are not possible
15:41:41 <rhiaro> s/descriptions/subscriptions
15:41:45 <rhiaro> ... it might be that this is already covered
15:42:08 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/180
15:42:08 <rhiaro> burn: Item 180
15:42:46 <rhiaro> selfissued: this is nonsensical, in what sense would a DID have a cryptocurrency balance
15:43:06 <rhiaro> burn: discussion has started, respond in issue
15:43:22 <rhiaro> selfissued: the two comments are also not actionable
15:43:58 <rhiaro> burn: comment in the issue, and be clear about what you mean by actionable. it looks like there's more information coming in, perhaps there's a wording change that will come out of this
15:44:16 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/181
15:44:30 <rhiaro> ... verifiable timestamps
15:44:48 <rhiaro> selfissued: this is one of about 6 where there's use of a term that is not defined
15:44:55 <rhiaro> ... I want someone else to step up and define it, or I'll delete it
15:45:05 <manu> q+
15:45:09 <rhiaro> ... who knows what it's supposed to mean?
15:45:11 <burn> ack manu
15:45:52 <rhiaro> manu: we can .. I don't think a good way to address these issues is I'm going to delete it and nobody else steps up to explain it. The editors will eventually get to this stuff. PRs that delete content that you don't understand in the spec are going to result in most likely turmoil and the PR won't go anywhere and will eat up everyone' stime
15:46:20 <rhiaro> ... if you feel like it's a useful definition to have in there or you think other people think it's useful, take a shot at it, but this is one where we might end up removing it but please don't threaten to delete spec text that dones't make sense to you because mor ethan likely it was put there by someone else for a reason
15:46:31 <rhiaro> ... all that to say the terminology we'll get to and the editors are busy in other parts of the spec
15:46:43 <manu> q+ to repeat
15:46:45 <rhiaro> selfissued: we shouldn't be using terms that are nto well understood and are not defined in the spec
15:46:50 <manu> q-
15:47:14 <Orie> selfissued you should be opening PRs, and helping to gather feedback on your issues by inviting converstation.
15:47:19 <rhiaro> burn: it's not that we disagree that a term needs to be defined. There are ways you can offer to help. This is a great example of where you don't understand what iti s. We're trying to keep all of the work be on the editors all the time
15:47:38 <rhiaro> ... orie has given some examples now. Something that would be helpful now is to look at those and suggest a possible improved definition
15:47:44 <rhiaro> ... you don't have to do that, if you dno't this will keep rolling around
15:47:50 <rhiaro> ... until someone is able to get to it
15:48:02 <rhiaro> ... when we get external reviews we expect reviewers to tell us what issues are, not necessarily how to solve them
15:48:05 <manu> +1 to what Orie said... "I don't understand this, I'm deleting it" is not an okay way to address these issues. "I don't understand this, I'm going to go and look to see who added the text and ask them and then work to do a PR that addresses my concern w/ their text." is much more helpful.
15:48:12 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:48:17 <rhiaro> ... but when group members say that, one of the things we'd like to encourage group members to do is also to write something to help
15:48:21 <burn> q?
15:48:25 <Orie> eventually
15:48:28 <rhiaro> selfissued: orie, you seem to understand, could you write a sentence in a PR?
15:48:51 <Orie> I have 4 open PRs... https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pulls
15:48:55 <rhiaro> burn: perhaps in discussion here you can figure out what's appropriate and one can write a PR
15:49:03 <rhiaro> selfissued: somebody who understands the intent should write a PR
15:49:04 <Orie> selfissued if you could review them, i would be happy to help...
15:49:07 <jonathan_holt> q+ to point out this is a broader discussion regarding the role of meta data.
15:49:13 <jonathan_holt> q-
15:49:20 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/157
15:50:02 <rhiaro> Orie: registry issues
15:50:09 <rhiaro> burn: manu updated with a status comment
15:50:24 <rhiaro> ... if there's any more information you can add to help make it clearer
15:50:43 <rhiaro> ... manu did it
15:50:50 <burn> q?
15:50:51 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/154
15:51:11 <Orie> q+
15:51:23 <rhiaro> burn: oliver is not on the call, plenty of discussion
15:51:35 <rhiaro> Orie: this is also blocked by the did core registries discussion
15:51:50 <jonathan_holt> q+
15:51:58 <rhiaro> ... what oliver is objecting to is the jsonld related security vocab and its relationship between [??] progress, please go review the did core regstries PRs
15:52:08 <rhiaro> burn: thank you
15:52:16 <burn> ack jonathan_holt
15:52:34 <rhiaro> jonathan_holt: it's also blocked by the rdf normalisation algorithm that ld proofs use, I'm not getting consistent results
15:52:38 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/151
15:53:09 <rhiaro> burn: from oskar
15:53:25 <rhiaro> ... it's been assigned to juan who I don't believe is on the call
15:53:28 <rhiaro> ... is juan a member?
15:53:40 <rhiaro> ... what's needed for this to move forward?
15:53:48 <ivan> q+
15:53:57 <rhiaro> ivan: he's not a member
15:54:04 <rhiaro> burn: we can't assign this to him
15:54:15 <Orie> assign oliver ;p
15:54:21 <rhiaro> ... is there someone who would like to take on this issue?
15:54:33 <rhiaro> ... oliver would have been ideal, but he hasn't been attending recently
15:54:40 <rhiaro> manu: we've been assigning it to the person that raised the issue
15:54:48 <rhiaro> ... I can do that unless soomeone feels strongly about taking this
15:55:03 <rhiaro> ivan: oskar is not a member of the group
15:55:44 <rhiaro> burn: I'd like the editors to review this issue and decide in your next call who you think might be appropriate to take this on
15:55:49 <burn> q?
15:55:52 <burn> ack Orie
15:56:02 <burn> ack ivan
15:56:29 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/143
15:56:44 <burn> regrets+ drummond
15:56:45 <rhiaro> ... assigned to drummond, though he's not on the call
15:57:33 <rhiaro> ... this is a bit of a broader issue
15:57:50 <rhiaro> ... manu and dlongley are responding to each other in this issue
15:58:02 <rhiaro> ... let's leave drummond assigned for now but we may need to look on someone else taking this on, eg. orie
15:58:20 <burn> q?
15:58:31 <rhiaro> ... Anything else for today anyone?
15:58:41 <rhiaro> ... Thank you everyone
15:58:56 <rhiaro> ... Please do let us know if you can if something impacts your ability to respond in a timely manner, we'll do our best to accommodate that
15:59:05 <rhiaro> ... we're going to be giving everybody more time to respond
15:59:09 <rhiaro> ... I wish you all good health and safety
15:59:13 <rhiaro> ... Bye!
15:59:14 <manu> Thanks all! :) Thanks rhiaro for scribing! :)
15:59:16 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:59:16 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, chriswinc, ivan, rhiaro, dlongley, manu, Orie, yancy, phila, brent, Tom_S_USAA, markus, jonathan_holt, selfissued, joel, dezell,
15:59:19 <Zakim> ... justin_r, dbuc, markus_sabadello, identitywoman, dmitriz, Andrei_Sambra, Tom_S__-_USAA
15:59:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:59:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/17-did-minutes.html Zakim
15:59:21 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:59:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did
16:58:40 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
17:27:25 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #did
18:00:39 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
18:44:54 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did
20:31:23 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
21:56:15 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
22:48:52 <gannan> gannan has joined #did
23:21:00 <gannan> gannan has joined #did