14:02:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did
14:02:32 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/10/19-did-irc
14:02:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:02:36 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:02:47 <ivan> Meeting: DID WG Telco
14:02:47 <ivan> Chair: burn
14:02:47 <ivan> Date: 2021-10-19
14:02:47 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Oct/0020.html
14:02:47 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-10-19: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Oct/0020.html
14:02:47 <agendabot> ivan, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Oct/0020.html
14:24:58 <dietrich> dietrich has joined #did
14:50:23 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did
14:53:50 <burn> burn has joined #did
14:57:05 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:57:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/19-did-minutes.html burn
14:57:09 <burn> present+
14:58:48 <ivan> regrets+
14:58:50 <agropper> agropper has joined #did
14:59:05 <burn> regrets+ brent
15:00:16 <rgrant> rgrant has joined #did
15:00:45 <justin_r> justin_r has joined #did
15:00:55 <mprorock> mprorock has joined #did
15:01:01 <mprorock> present+
15:01:06 <agropper> present+
15:01:10 <shigeya_> present+
15:01:15 <rgrant> present+
15:01:21 <manu> present+
15:01:21 <TallTed> present+
15:01:27 <Geun-Hyung> Geun-Hyung has joined #did
15:01:35 <Geun-Hyung> present+
15:01:38 <cel> present+
15:01:40 <justin_r> present+
15:02:36 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #did
15:02:39 <drummond> drummond has joined #did
15:02:44 <dmitriz> present+
15:02:46 <drummond> present+
15:03:13 <bumblefudge> bumblefudge has joined #did
15:03:19 <bumblefudge> present+
15:03:22 <bumblefudge> scribe+
15:03:26 <Orie> Orie has joined #did
15:03:34 <Orie> present+
15:03:37 <burn> Topic: Agenda Review, Introductions
15:04:31 <bumblefudge> burn: continuing our interrupted agenda from last week after brief updates on current events
15:04:40 <bumblefudge> ... time permitting, we'll get to the rubric today as well
15:04:40 <manu> q+
15:04:44 <burn> ack manu
15:04:46 <bumblefudge> ... call for updates
15:04:50 <bumblefudge> ... to that agenda
15:05:05 <bumblefudge> manu: I have been working A LOT on the CR challenge, so i'd be glad to give the update
15:05:09 <bumblefudge> ... on that
15:05:18 <bumblefudge> burn: timebox to 15min then reconvene?
15:05:20 <bumblefudge> manu: yup
15:05:29 <burn> Topic: DID Spec status update
15:06:28 <manu> q+ to note be firm but exceedingly polite when engaging, engage in AC discussion, blog/write about it -- how to help
15:06:33 <burn> ack manu
15:06:33 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note be firm but exceedingly polite when engaging, engage in AC discussion, blog/write about it -- how to help
15:07:23 <bumblefudge> manu: twitter update: people are reporting harassment on twitter, including WG members (which will have to be escalated for the sake of the WG)
15:07:52 <manu> Guidelines for engaging in discussion - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Oct/0064.html
15:07:53 <burn> s/on the CR challenge/on the Formal Objections challenge/
15:08:28 <bumblefudge> manu: so far, only one person in this WG has crossed the line definitively, but here is a link to guidelines to stay as far from that line as possible
15:08:31 <bumblefudge> ... that helps our cause
15:08:59 <bumblefudge> manu: not enough people engaging directly with AC (mattr, orie, drummond, manu)
15:09:12 <drummond> I agree, the more of us who can engage as AC reps, the better
15:09:30 <bumblefudge> ... i encourage people to engage directly to make us look more cohesive and WG-driven rather than company-driven in debating this
15:09:53 <burn> s/(mattr, orie, drummond, manu)/(only mattr, orie, drummond, manu so far)/
15:09:56 <bumblefudge> manu: i think everyone's seen the minutes from the formal objection meeting.  everyone on all sides found that mtg frustrating
15:10:19 <rgrant> I'd like to see a frequently-updated list of URLs to engage at.  Github, mailing list, newsworthy external mentions.
15:10:36 <bumblefudge> ... if TPAC were happening in person, there might be more backchannels and face-to-face resolution and dialogue
15:10:47 <bumblefudge> q+
15:11:03 <manu> Discussion w/ Google is here -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-did-wg/2021Oct/0022.html
15:11:42 <drummond> That was an excellent summary message, Manu
15:11:42 <bumblefudge> manu: i've been trying to set up chats ad hoc to make up for that lost TPAC opportunity, and the chat with google was particularly helpful to me at least in growing the understanding
15:11:44 <asocrt> asocrt has joined #did
15:12:04 <bumblefudge> manu: I think we should be trying to achieve similar dialogues with other objectors
15:12:17 <burn> ack bumblefudge
15:12:22 <drummond> q?
15:12:46 <damian77> damian77 has joined #did
15:12:46 <dietrich> dietrich has joined #did
15:12:46 <etropea73101> etropea73101 has joined #did
15:12:47 <cypherhippie> cypherhippie has joined #did
15:12:48 <msim> msim has joined #did
15:12:56 <manu> bumblefudge: I want to second Ryan's comments, make sure it's discussed, a lot of us have no experience with the AC, barely have enough experience w/ W3C process, how can we help. Explain to me like I'm 5, what is an AC rep and how do we engage.
15:13:04 <manu> q+ to try and explain what an AC rep is and hhow to engage.
15:13:07 <burn> ack manu
15:13:07 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to try and explain what an AC rep is and hhow to engage.
15:13:24 <bumblefudge> manu: i am assuming that lack of experience is widespread and explaining will help
15:13:41 <bumblefudge> ... AC rep is each company's rep to W3C, i.e., each member org has one
15:14:06 <bumblefudge> ... that rep is supposed to direct input from the rest of your org and vote on your company's behalf, speak for the org in various channels, etc
15:14:42 <bumblefudge> ... these reps tend to be the most organizationally savvy people; the W3C AC forum is the switchboard
15:15:06 <bumblefudge> ... in this case, they forward emails and inputs to the "formal objection council"
15:15:32 <bumblefudge> ... there is also a meta conversation about what form formal objection councils should look like in general
15:15:43 <burn> q?
15:15:53 <manu> bumblefudge: What is the step by step? Email AC rep, tell them what to forward to whom?
15:15:57 <manu> q?
15:16:52 <bumblefudge> manu: anyone at a member company can write an email for the Formal Objection Council and/or the AC mailing list, and their AC rep can forward it
15:17:00 <rgrant> q+ summarizing conflicts of interest and recusal
15:17:03 <bumblefudge> ... but, caveat emptor, the AC list doesn't love hit and runs
15:17:11 <rgrant> q+ to too two  summarizing conflicts of interest and recusal
15:17:16 <bumblefudge> ... so your AC rep might forward back questions and followups from them, etc
15:17:27 <bumblefudge> ... Another tip: don't spam the list
15:17:45 <burn> ack rgrant
15:17:45 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to too two  summarizing conflicts of interest and recusal
15:18:38 <bumblefudge> rgrant: in 15seconds, i think the recusal thing is really important, and it's just hitting me now:
15:19:13 <Orie> See issues: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/278 - https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/580
15:19:14 <bumblefudge> ... you have people suggesting the org should be run in a way that allows moral hazard (and conflict of interest) because their MH/CoI was declared at the outset
15:19:21 <manu> q+ to agree
15:19:25 <bumblefudge> ... and i think this group should pay attention to that inside-baseball meta conversation
15:19:27 <burn> ack manu
15:19:28 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree
15:19:36 <bumblefudge> Manu: I think the AC needs exactly that kind of input
15:20:10 <bumblefudge> ... the AC deals directly with the recusal process, and if you tell that what you just told us, it helps!
15:20:18 <bumblefudge> ... if they don't hear about it on their list, they don't know about it
15:20:28 <TallTed> To find out who your AC rep is (Member-only link) -- https://www.w3.org/Member/ACList
15:20:28 <burn> q?
15:20:40 <manu> q+ on Google's position and path forward... maybe for another call?
15:20:45 <burn> ack manu
15:20:46 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to comment on Google's position and path forward... maybe for another call?
15:20:59 <bumblefudge> burn: ted dropped a helpful members-only authenticated link that will tell you who your AC rep is if you don't know
15:21:17 <justin_r_> justin_r_ has joined #did
15:21:39 <bumblefudge> manu: we should consider the objections in how we recharter this group down the line, although maybe we should talk abotu that at a future DID-WG meeting
15:21:55 <bumblefudge> Burn: I am inclined to table it for now if we can wait cuz we have Orie here
15:22:06 <bumblefudge> ... also, importantly, we have a TPAC meeting thursday of next week
15:22:22 <bumblefudge> ... so apologies for the agenda confusion
15:23:29 <bumblefudge> burn: reminder, TPAC meeting is 11-1 Eastern Time thursday , likely with Jaffe in attendance
15:23:30 <manu> Jeff Jaffe is W3C's CEO.
15:23:43 <manu> q+
15:23:53 <burn> ack manu
15:24:31 <bumblefudge> manu: i'd like to discuss google's input and what we're thinking by way of response , and what a rechartered DID-WG could look like
15:24:40 <rgrant> Oh, along with URLs request, I'd also appreciate frequent updates on expected timelines.
15:25:23 <bumblefudge> manu: J J will likely be there to check in on big-picture questions about whether the WG is proceeding according to plan/procedures, whether a recharter would address some of this, etc
15:25:27 <drummond> q?
15:25:31 <burn> Ryan, we are in uncharted territory, so timeline predictions are difficult.  We will give what info we have.
15:25:42 <bumblefudge> ... so discussing tuesday before thursday and getting on the same page would help, i think
15:25:53 <drummond> q+
15:25:56 <burn> q?
15:26:04 <burn> ack drummond
15:26:08 <bumblefudge> burn: we can decide later whether to meet tuesday
15:26:23 <Orie> q+ to ask the W3C process has no formal position on recusal, and no timeline on council ruling, correct?
15:26:28 <bumblefudge> drummond: from my POV, knowing which TPAC meetings to try to attend would help, so some strategizing would help
15:26:40 <burn> q?
15:27:07 <bumblefudge> burn: we're a little behind, but we will continue this conversation over email
15:27:53 <burn> ack Orie
15:27:53 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to ask the W3C process has no formal position on recusal, and no timeline on council ruling, correct?
15:27:56 <bumblefudge> ... and workshop an agenda at next week's LATER TIME (US evening) regularly scheduled meeting
15:28:19 <bumblefudge> Orie: tbc, we have no procedurally-explicit deadline for resolution of this objection?
15:28:39 <bumblefudge> Burn: Yes, that is our understanding-- we are in unchartered waters and the meta conversation is happening at the same time as the conversation
15:28:55 <bumblefudge> ... it's... not easy not knowing that
15:29:36 <bumblefudge> ... there is a statement about recusal in the official statement, claiming "those with CoI should recuse themselves" but no precision to that should or definition of individual and/or corporate conflicts of interest
15:29:47 <burn> q?
15:30:15 <bumblefudge> manu: blog! write! engage your AC rep!
15:30:18 <burn> Topic: A note about Core issues
15:31:15 <bumblefudge> burn: this is a brief note we'd wanted to make 3ish weeks ago. we (the chairs) know that issues will continue to be raised, but WG is now in "pause mode" on all non-urgent issues to focus entirely on CR ratification
15:31:27 <rgrant> q+ which spec?
15:31:37 <burn> q?
15:31:37 <rgrant> q-
15:31:41 <manu> q+ which
15:31:47 <rgrant> q- which
15:31:47 <manu> q- which
15:31:50 <manu> q- spec?
15:31:55 <bumblefudge> ... so be warned that core spec non-urgent issues will be addressed slowly
15:32:08 <burn> Topic: DID Registry Resolutions
15:32:14 <bumblefudge> ... note: other items this WG works on will proceed closer to the usual pace
15:32:21 <Orie> q+ to ask for folks to review ryans PR
15:32:34 <Orie> PR reviews: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/pull/341
15:32:53 <burn> ack Orie
15:32:53 <Zakim> Orie, you wanted to ask for folks to review ryans PR
15:32:57 <bumblefudge> burn: framing questions: what's necessary to continue the work? can everything else work on github as issues?
15:33:15 <burn> Yes, many thanks, Ryan
15:33:15 <bumblefudge> orie: i want to thank ryan for an issue-first, PR-second approach that resolves many registry problems
15:33:44 <bumblefudge> ... we haven't always been timely about the registry, so plz plz review those PRs, it helps us with many of our core issues as a WG
15:33:48 <drummond> q+ to talk about https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/83
15:33:54 <burn> q?
15:34:04 <burn> ack drummond
15:34:04 <Zakim> drummond, you wanted to talk about https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/83
15:34:17 <bumblefudge> ... i won't summarize ryan's very broad PR because it covers a lot of ground but review it soon, particularly if you have a did method that might get booted by its being merged!
15:34:30 <bumblefudge> drummond: i think this PR is urgent vis-a-vis the formal objections!
15:34:45 <bumblefudge> ... i shared a link to an alternative solution opened in another issue
15:34:58 <burn> q?
15:35:04 <manu> q+
15:35:06 <rgrant> q+ to very briefly summarize Drummands proposal
15:35:09 <burn> ack manu
15:35:31 <bumblefudge> manu: since we're on that issue (pr 341), my only suggestion is to replace "provisional" with "non-compliant"
15:36:00 <drummond> +1 to not using "non-compliant". But https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/83 proposes a more comprehensive solution.
15:36:01 <bumblefudge> ... or rather, NOT to replace it-- we will look bad if we overnight switch most of our registry to "non-compliant"
15:36:03 <TallTed> "experimental"?
15:36:18 <TallTed> "beta-compliant"?
15:36:20 <burn> q?
15:36:23 <burn> ack rgrant
15:36:23 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to very briefly summarize Drummands proposal
15:36:31 <bumblefudge> ... replace "non-compliant" with "provisional" in the PR, i mean
15:36:44 <manu> s/my only suggestion is to replace "provisional" with "non-compliant"/my only suggestion is to replace "non-compliant" with "provisional"
15:36:59 <drummond> +1 to "trolling the DID method spec authors"
15:37:43 <burn> q?
15:37:49 <manu> q+ to think about how the broader community views that trolling :) -- also, 'implemented', 'test suite output', etc.
15:37:52 <burn> ack manu
15:37:52 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to think about how the broader community views that trolling :) -- also, 'implemented', 'test suite output', etc.
15:37:58 <drummond> Comment being discussed: https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/83#issuecomment-946075510
15:38:05 <bumblefudge> ryan: I was trolling, it's true, or put a little fire under them. i would support drummond's solution and I think it addresses manu's objection
15:38:06 <Orie> I will happily review a PR drummond, you are welcome to open one.
15:38:33 <drummond> q+
15:38:49 <bumblefudge> manu: maybe we are not thinking enough about ungenerous readings-- we don't want people marked as "noncompliant" for having been compliant and having passed a test suite before breaking changes
15:39:16 <mprorock> +1 manu - wording and appearances are very important right now
15:39:20 <rgrant> q+ to mention that the registry editors also need to preserve neutrality
15:39:20 <bumblefudge> ... and we also don't want to hand a "gotcha" opportunity to those who will comb through our github looking for evidence that we aren't running a proper WG here
15:39:28 <bumblefudge> ... or that we've wasted effort
15:39:29 <burn> ack drummond
15:39:31 <burn> +1 manu
15:40:15 <bumblefudge> drummond: I put a link to a sidestepping solution-- a 1.0 compliant table distinct from the existing table that includes all the provisionals as-is
15:40:29 <bumblefudge> ... as long as there is some contextualizing explanation above both
15:40:36 <burn> q?
15:40:44 <Orie> basically, we need PRs... there are already enough issues....
15:41:01 <bumblefudge> ... I will work with Ryan on doing this in PRs
15:41:04 <bumblefudge> ... if the group supports it
15:41:04 <burn> ack rgrant
15:41:04 <Zakim> rgrant, you wanted to mention that the registry editors also need to preserve neutrality
15:41:28 <bumblefudge> Rgrant: First of all, Manu thanks for correcting the record on the amount of interop that these specs have already achieved
15:42:09 <bumblefudge> ... i wasn't trolling to be annoying, I was hoping to avoid value judgments or partisanship in the editing of this registry
15:42:22 <burn> q?
15:42:26 <bumblefudge> ... just to explain the choice of words, even if i support solutions using a diff word
15:42:56 <burn> Topic: DID Registry Issues
15:42:58 <bumblefudge> burn: hand it back to orie with a suggestion for how to proceed
15:43:14 <bumblefudge> ... namely, I caught your comment in the chat asking for PRs not issues
15:43:39 <bumblefudge> ... and I support you in walking through the issues in whatever order and assign PRs to people if you think that would help
15:43:42 <Orie> q+
15:43:51 <burn> ack Orie
15:44:13 <bumblefudge> orie: yes, that sounds good.  without assigning the issues to individuals, they will never get closed.  we need to periodically review and re-assign
15:44:33 <bumblefudge> ... the most urgent one is ryan's PR and drummond's suggestions
15:45:06 <bumblefudge> ... in general, i think "request changes" function should be as concrete and implementable as possible-- don't keep discussing, suggest specific changes or even make them
15:45:14 <bumblefudge> ... and i think the registries need regular issue review
15:45:20 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:45:35 <drummond> +1 to doing regular issue review on the DID Spec Registries from now on
15:45:45 <manu> agree
15:45:52 <bumblefudge> burn: yes, WG deprioritized the registry for a while, but I think as we transition to maintenance mode, we can re-prioritize the registry
15:45:54 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/310
15:46:05 <bumblefudge> orie: yes, let's go issue by issue
15:46:24 <mprorock> +1 close
15:46:24 <bumblefudge> orie: this one is stale, seems closeable
15:46:40 <manu> q+
15:46:48 <burn> ack manu
15:47:02 <bumblefudge> burn: sidebar: fine to proceed a little faster with an "any objections?"
15:47:13 <bumblefudge> manu: a link to a PR that closed this issue would be nice
15:47:33 <manu> +1 to close.
15:47:52 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/322
15:47:52 <bumblefudge> orie: closed. on to 322
15:48:27 <manu> q+
15:48:30 <burn> ack manu
15:48:37 <TallTed> q+
15:49:02 <bumblefudge> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/13#issuecomment-887876417
15:49:24 <burn> ack TallTed
15:49:44 <bumblefudge> tallted: contains link, which shows plenty of discussion and resolution
15:49:49 <manu> q+
15:49:53 <burn> ack manu
15:49:58 <bumblefudge> orie: yup, makes sense, all signs point towards closeability
15:50:36 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/105
15:50:37 <manu> no objection to closing
15:50:49 <manu> gah, that was for 322, not 105.
15:51:47 <manu> q+
15:51:49 <bumblefudge> orie: I maintain, as i did at the time, that this issue is broad and hsould be closed and replaced with smaller, PR-able issues
15:51:53 <burn> ack manu
15:52:12 <bumblefudge> manu: there were method spec links missing at the time
15:53:32 <bumblefudge> burn: but newer issues track that, we don't need to keep this one open to track it
15:53:36 <bumblefudge> orie: +1
15:53:52 <bumblefudge> manu: i'm not sure that's true for every issue covered here
15:54:21 <bumblefudge> ... in partic the "did method spec" versioning (i agree that the missing did method spec links will be handled by ryan's PR or follow-up PRs)
15:54:30 <bumblefudge> ... so yes, i think we can close
15:54:42 <bumblefudge> orie: if you'd leave a comment, that would help.  otherwise, no objections?
15:54:50 <bumblefudge> ryan: I just posted a comment
15:55:23 <bumblefudge> burn: the most important reason for all this commenting-before-closing is to make explicit that issues are never closed without resolving
15:55:49 <drummond> +1 to closing
15:55:55 <bumblefudge> ... and if someone can link to the part where the missing-spec-links are part of ryan's PR, that would help too
15:55:57 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues/94
15:55:59 <burn> q?
15:56:25 <bumblefudge> orie: i've reached out to MSFT about this multiple times, no feedback, i say we close and re-open if concerns get raised
15:57:02 <bumblefudge> manu: i think we should be more worried about the trademark issue
15:57:07 <bumblefudge> orie: comment in the thread?
15:57:41 <manu> q+
15:57:44 <bumblefudge> tallted: i think the trademark issue is being misconstrued a bit-- if there were a trademarked DID METHOD, sure, but a trademark in another sector does not apply to this sector
15:57:59 <burn> ack manu
15:58:03 <bumblefudge> ... and did methods can be named after trademarked words if the trademark doesn't include esoteric namespaces
15:58:19 <bumblefudge> manu: but "login with github" is a patented thing, i think it's too close for comfort!
15:58:45 <bumblefudge> burn: ok this is what we wanted-- discussion leads to either closing or a PR
15:58:54 <TallTed> s/patented thing/thing/
15:59:17 <bumblefudge> orie: everything manu said should be in the issue, and now it's in the issue
15:59:23 <bumblefudge> ... so it's ready for PR now
15:59:28 <bumblefudge> ... i can work with that
15:59:32 <rgrant> thanks Orie!
15:59:57 <bumblefudge> burn: this kind of progress helps, looking forward to seeing everyone again next week at our regular (LATE) time
16:00:30 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/19-did-minutes.html burn
16:00:39 <burn> rrsagent, make logs public
16:01:28 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:01:28 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been burn, mprorock, agropper, shigeya_, rgrant, manu, TallTed, Geun-Hyung, cel, justin_r, dmitriz, drummond, bumblefudge, Orie
16:01:31 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/19-did-minutes.html Zakim
16:01:34 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:01:38 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:01:38 <RRSAgent> I see no action items