14:56:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:56:05 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/27-vcwg-irc
14:56:08 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:56:09 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:56:31 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:56:31 <ivan> Date: 2022-07-27
14:56:31 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20220727T110000/edit-future#agenda
14:56:31 <ivan> chair: kristina
14:56:31 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2022-07-27: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20220727T110000/edit-future#agenda
14:57:17 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3094a419-a55e-4608-aac1-6144804c5201/20220727T110000/edit#agenda
14:57:20 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
14:57:47 <kristina> kristina has changed the topic to: VCWG Agenda 2022-07-27
14:58:14 <kristina> zakim, start meeting
14:58:14 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:58:15 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), kristina
14:58:24 <kristina> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:58:30 <kristina> Chair: Kristina Yasuda
14:58:40 <kristina> Date: 2022-07-27
14:59:09 <kristina> ah thanks, Ivan :)
14:59:43 <phila_> phila_ has joined #vcwg
15:00:08 <kristina> got it! is chair: brent also enough than
15:00:37 <Snorre> Hi just wanted to pop in and say I follow the meetings async, as here in Norway it is a strong tradition of vacation and family during the summer. So I dont have the capability to join these meetings during July. Will be back stronger from August!
15:00:45 <Snorre> Have a good meeting!
15:01:12 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:01:26 <decentralgabe> present+
15:01:43 <SamSmith> SamSmith has joined #vcwg
15:01:43 <phila_> present+
15:01:56 <ivan> present+
15:02:31 <ivan> present+ kristina
15:02:40 <manu> present+
15:03:04 <phila_> scribe+ phila
15:03:10 <TallTed> present+
15:03:11 <cel> present+
15:03:24 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
15:03:27 <oliver> present+ oliver_terbu
15:03:36 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:03:39 <ivan> present+ davidc
15:03:42 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:03:45 <manu> q+ to request status update on FCGS process.
15:03:51 <phila_> kristina: Talks through agenda
15:03:52 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:03:58 <ivan> present+ sam_smith
15:03:59 <will_abramson> will_abramson has joined #vcwg
15:04:04 <DavidC> present+
15:04:22 <phila_> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2022Jul/0042.html
15:04:25 <phila_> chair: kristina
15:04:30 <marty_reed> marty_reed has joined #vcwg
15:04:31 <ivan> present+ steve_cole
15:04:31 <ivan> present+ kerri
15:04:39 <kdeangs1> kdeangs1 has joined #vcwg
15:04:41 <ivan> present+ markus
15:04:54 <ivan> present+ oliver
15:05:05 <phila_> kristina: Brent and I started doing issue triage
15:05:06 <ivan> present+ marty
15:05:13 <phila_> ... lots of issues open in GitHub
15:05:16 <ivan> present+ kdeangs1
15:05:19 <phila_> ... are these issues still relevant?
15:05:23 <Steve_C> Steve_C has joined #vcwg
15:05:29 <phila_> kristina: If still relevant, which are the priority?
15:05:32 <ivan> present+ will_abramson
15:05:37 <phila_> ... please start looking at them
15:05:40 <ivan> present+ brent
15:05:40 <kristina> q?
15:05:42 <manu> +1 to the agenda :)
15:05:43 <manu> q-
15:05:50 <cel> q+
15:05:55 <phila_> kristina: Would anyone like to (re)introduce themselves?
15:06:22 <brentz> brentz has joined #vcwg
15:06:27 <brentz> present+
15:06:28 <phila_> cel: I'll introduce myself. I'm Charles Lehner from Spruce
15:06:39 <phila_> ... I was in the previous VCWG, the CCG. I'm a software developer
15:07:03 <phila_> Kerri: I'm one of the co-chairs of the edu-vc task force. I'm here as an individual
15:07:14 <phila_> ... background in research and dev
15:07:29 <cel> q-
15:07:51 <phila_> Steve_C: With MAG. In Web Payments WG for some time. It was recommended that we join this group by our friends at Connexus
15:08:12 <phila_> Topic: Participation renewal
15:08:26 <phila_> kristina: Tomorrow, 28 July, is the deadline to renew your IP commitments
15:08:46 <phila_> Topic: W3C publishing crash course
15:08:51 <ivan> -> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#pr-1
15:09:46 <phila_> ivan: Talks through the figure in the process document (see link)
15:09:47 <kristina> q?
15:09:50 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg
15:10:16 <phila_> ivan: How to get from First Pub Working Draft to Rec.
15:10:34 <phila_> ivan: You may have seen the issue raised by Manu for the FPWD for V2 of the data model.
15:10:57 <phila_> ... that's when the doc gets added to the database of formal docs. IP issues come in for the first time (you can raise IP issues at this point)
15:11:15 <phila_> ivan: There's an admin overhead which is mostly on the editors and the team contact (me).
15:11:27 <tplooker> tplooker has joined #vcwg
15:11:35 <tplooker> present+
15:11:37 <phila_> ivan: Need official authorisation from 'The Director' to publish - there's an internal team process
15:11:54 <phila_> ivan: There's a discussion about the short name for the doc
15:12:20 <phila_> ivan: Working drafts - there are many of them. This is bc each PR, when merged, will become a Working Draft.
15:12:47 <phila_> ivan: It's automated so that as soon as you make a merge on a PR it gets published on our pages at w3.org/TR
15:12:59 <phila_> ivan: We will have lots of PRs and therefore lots of working drafts
15:13:12 <phila_> ivan: There's no admin to do around this, no director approval
15:13:23 <phila_> ivan: Eventually we get a Candidate rec
15:14:17 <phila_> ivan: Once we're in CR, ideally, there are no further changes to the doc. In reality, issues are often raised as a result of implementation experience.
15:14:34 <phila_> ivan: So you then get to a Candidate Rec draft - and you can have several of those.
15:15:03 <phila_> ivan: Original declaration that "we're done" may prove premature, so we go round again
15:15:30 <phila_> ivan: Then one day we cay we're technically ready and done in terms of testing and we say "we're finished" and we want the doc to be a Proposed Rec.
15:16:03 <phila_> ... that's a big deal that needs Director approval. Then the W3C membership votes. Usually this is a simple step.
15:16:48 <phila_> ... As some in this group know, members to have the ability to raise a formal objection to a PR turning into a Rec. Big discussion. May have to go back to Working Draft and repeat
15:17:10 <phila_> ... or the Director decides that the formal objection is overruled and the Proposed Rec is published as a Rec.
15:17:33 <kristina> q?
15:17:41 <phila_> ivan: We'll publish several FPWDs in the coming weeks. Then lots of WDs before we get to the next stage by which time you'll have forgotten everything I just said.
15:17:50 <phila_> ivan: You know where to find me if you have questions
15:17:59 <phila_> Topic: Dates for the WG deliverables
15:18:08 <phila_> brentz: Thanks Ivan for that lead in...
15:19:00 <phila_> brentz: Putting what Ivan talked about in a more concreate picture - what this means. For primary doc (data model) we hope to go to FPWD now (July 22)
15:19:17 <phila_> ... Then by March we hope to be in feature freeze
15:19:42 <phila_> brentz: First CR should then be in Sept '23. Maybe a second CR in Jan '24
15:19:53 <aisp> aisp has joined #vcwg
15:19:58 <phila_> brentz: Then PR in May '24, Rec in May '24
15:20:29 <kristina> q?
15:20:29 <phila_> brentz: That sounds like a long time, but it's not. A lot of time disappears into comment review, CR, implementation feedback etc.
15:20:48 <phila_> brentz: The only guarantee is that within a few months, none of these dates will be the same, but this is the goal.
15:20:50 <manu> +1 time line looks like a great plan!
15:20:51 <kristina> q?
15:21:03 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg
15:21:12 <gnatran> gnatran has joined #vcwg
15:21:35 <phila_> Topic: Relationship between input docs and deliverables
15:21:48 <phila_> kristina: Input doc, the VC data model, Manu has already filed a PR
15:21:53 <manu> q+ to provide current status on FPWD and CGFR /after/ the introduction to the topic.
15:22:01 <phila_> ... but we were also talking about a JWS FPWD as well
15:22:42 <phila_> kristina: We'd like to make the distinction clear |-| a CCG input doc and a VCWG draft doc
15:22:57 <phila_> manu: I've got some thoughts on the topic you just raised. But where we are...
15:23:00 <ivan> present+ juancaballero
15:23:22 <phila_> manu: The first link is ...
15:23:23 <manu> VC Data Model v2.0 FPWD: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894
15:23:45 <phila_> manu: There's a PR for the VCWG data Model Version 2 based on a resolution we made last week.
15:24:03 <phila_> ... It's a very minor update to version 1.1. It removes some of the Rec boiler plate language
15:24:15 <phila_> ... There's an FPWD target publication date of 11 Aug
15:24:31 <phila_> ... Markus, Gabe and Orie have already reviewed. I'd like to see if we can get it merged this week
15:24:32 <ivan> present+ aisp
15:24:37 <phila_> ... so we can kick-start the admin process
15:24:43 <ivan> q+
15:24:51 <manu> Publication request for Data Integrity CGFRs: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2022Jul/0107.html
15:24:57 <phila_> manu: The other update is a publication request for the data Integrity CGFR
15:25:06 <phila_> ... (Community Group Final report)
15:25:30 <phila_> manu: 4 of the docs from the CCG, Data Integ, JWS 2020 EDSA + 1 other
15:25:45 <phila_> manu: This group will need to take those docs over and pull them in
15:26:12 <phila_> manu: Those docs are out there for IP commitments. We think there's a bug that needs fixing for that IP process
15:26:21 <kristina> ack manu
15:26:21 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide current status on FPWD and CGFR /after/ the introduction to the topic.
15:26:25 <kristina> ack ivan
15:26:28 <phila_> ivan: Not central but... before we go to FPWD is to decide what the short name is
15:26:49 <phila_> ivan: We have to vote for that. What's more interesting is how we handle the various short names vis-a-vis previous version of the data model spec
15:27:04 <phila_> ivan: I had some discussion with PlH about this. I have a proposal for that
15:27:44 <phila_> ivan: [gets permission from Manu to proceed]
15:27:58 <phila_> kristina: It seems uncomplicated to have 'v2' in the short name
15:28:06 <phila_> ivan: No, it's not, but we need to aks for it
15:28:11 <phila_> s/aks/ask/
15:28:30 <phila_> manu: There's not much to the PR
15:28:48 <phila_> manu: Ivan, you just commented what the group needs to do
15:29:07 <manu> This is the proposal for shornames: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080
15:29:10 <phila_> ivan: Yes, the VCWG needs to agree what the short URL is, immutable version URLs etc.
15:29:42 <phila_> ivan: The background is that we have /TR/vc-data-model
15:30:02 <phila_> ivan: This is the reference for the Rec. The Q is what do we want the future URL to be?
15:30:15 <manu> +1 to the proposal in https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080 -- it makes sense to me, at least.
15:30:29 <phila_> ivan: It's possible to ask for /TR/vc-data-model-1.1 for the currnet Rec
15:30:41 <manu> I'd like us to set up the vc-data-model-1.0 link as well, FWIW.
15:30:50 <phila_> ivan: we will have /TR/vc-data-model-2.0
15:31:14 <manu> q+ to provide support for the proposal.
15:31:24 <phila_> ... We will ask the systems team that the latest stable version... as long as we are in Working Drafts, it will refer to version 1.1
15:31:43 <phila_> ivan: When we get to CR (we're technically done) then the same URl will point to version 2
15:31:54 <phila_> ivan: So the community has a stable reference for a doc that is stable
15:33:08 <phila_> phila_: For clarity. The /TR/vc-data-model will imminently resolve to version 1.1 (always to be available at /TR/vc-data-model-1.1)
15:33:10 <kristina> ack manu
15:33:10 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide support for the proposal.
15:33:21 <phila_> ... And then will switch to V2 once it gets to CR
15:33:25 <ivan> present+ tony
15:33:42 <cel> +1
15:33:43 <phila_> manu: There's a PS. Maybe we should set up a 'version 1.0' URL too.
15:34:02 <brentz> q+ to run formal proposal
15:34:03 <phila_> kristina: Any one against this proposal?
15:34:36 <phila_> ivan: A reminder to ourselves. When we do a formal resolution that we're publishing a FPWD, we have to include the short name that we want
15:34:56 <kristina> ack brentz
15:34:56 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to run formal proposal
15:34:56 <manu> q+ to explicitly ask if we can merge the PR by COB today, or if people need more time?
15:35:00 <aisp_> aisp_ has joined #vcwg
15:35:10 <phila_> [Discussion about timing cf review time]
15:35:42 <manu> q-
15:35:42 <phila_> ivan: Maybe it's the time to remind the group that any formal resolution only becomes set after 5 days
15:36:04 <phila_> brentz: Makes proposal
15:36:11 <phila_> [Brent re-writes proposal text]
15:36:46 <brentz> PROPOSAL: use the shortnames and steps recommended in https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080 and publish the FPWD on 11 Aug 2022
15:37:18 <phila_> PROPOSAL: The VCWG will publish the FPWD of VC Data Model v2.0 on 2022-08-11 using the vc-data-model-2.0 shortname and the steps recommended in: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080
15:37:31 <TallTed> +1
15:37:37 <phila_> phila_: +1
15:37:39 <ivan> +1
15:37:40 <tplooker> +1
15:37:40 <manu> +1
15:37:42 <markus_sabadello> +1
15:37:45 <kdeangs1> +1
15:37:45 <marty_reed> +1
15:37:50 <Kerri_Lemoie> +1
15:37:52 <decentralgabe> +1
15:37:52 <brentz> +1
15:37:53 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:38:02 <gnatran> +1
15:38:07 <brentz> RESOLVED: The VCWG will publish the FPWD of VC Data Model v2.0 on 2022-08-11 using the vc-data-model-2.0 shortname and the steps recommended in: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080
15:38:07 <oliver> +1
15:38:15 <Steve_C> +1
15:38:27 <phila_> RESOLUTION: The VCWG will publish the FPWD of VC Data Model v2.0 on 2022-08-11 using the vc-data-model-2.0 shortname and the steps recommended in: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894#issuecomment-1196910080
15:38:30 <ivan> present+ gnatran
15:38:34 <aisp_> +1
15:38:43 <phila_> kristina: We'll leave it to the editors to execute that.
15:38:58 <phila_> Topic: JWS 2020 input doc
15:39:05 <manu> q+ on process to move over documents.
15:39:15 <phila_> kristina: Are there any updates on this?
15:39:20 <kristina> ack manu
15:39:20 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to comment on process to move over documents.
15:39:32 <phila_> manu: I think that one's ready to go. I think there's agreement to follow what Orie wanted to do for that work item
15:40:03 <phila_> ... please jump in if this sounds wrong. We have published a CGFR of that in the CCG. It's a stable doc.
15:40:45 <phila_> ... The buttons are broken for the patent disclosure step, but using the process that Orie outlined, we can move it across to the VCWG whenever we want. My suggestion is 'immediately'
15:40:56 <phila_> manu: I have some concerns about repeating that process for the other docs
15:41:25 <phila_> kristina: Good to hear there's a clear path for the JWS doc, when the button is fixed
15:41:35 <phila_> manu: I'm saying that the button doesn't need to be fixed
15:42:07 <phila_> manu: The CCG has agreed to release it, the VCWG has said it would like to take it, we have initiated the IP process. There is no immediate danger
15:42:26 <phila_> ivan: I believe that's true as long as we're talking about a FPWD there;s no process issue there.
15:42:40 <phila_> manu: So we can move it over as son as the VCWG wanted to do it
15:42:46 <cel> s/son/soon/
15:43:19 <cel> s/there;s/there's/
15:43:40 <kristina> q?
15:43:47 <phila_> manu: We want to move the CGFR to become an editor's draft NOT an FPWD yet
15:43:56 <phila_> Topic: Issues in the VC Data Model repo
15:44:09 <phila_> kristina: Brent and I have been triaging the issues
15:44:34 <phila_> kristina: Brent and I went through the least updated issues.
15:45:04 <phila_> kristina: Once the comments are not being updated any more... all the issues in the tracker have a V2 tag, but older/inactive issues do not
15:45:29 <phila_> kristina: We added a couple of flags for those issues that we think should be moved to the data integrity work
15:45:42 <phila_> ... i.e. they're not relevant to the VC work, the issue has moved etc.
15:45:52 <manu> q+ to focus on closing issues, if we can at this stage?
15:45:58 <phila_> ... There's also a "relevant?" tag
15:46:31 <phila_> brentz: Because we haven't finished going through them all... if we want to do issue processing... we could go through the most recently updated and get through some now.
15:46:32 <kristina> ack manu
15:46:32 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to focus on closing issues, if we can at this stage?
15:46:33 <manu> q-
15:46:40 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+sort%3Aupdated-des
15:46:41 <phila_> manu: I like Brent's idea better than what I was going to say
15:46:44 <phila_> brentz:
15:46:53 <phila_> brentz: Here's a link to that sorting
15:47:24 <brentz> subtopic:
15:47:31 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/823
15:47:43 <manu> q+ to comment on 823
15:48:20 <phila_> brentz: kristina and I marked it as pending closed bc we think it maybe has been dealt with but TallTed made a comment recently...
15:48:25 <brentz> ack manu
15:48:25 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to comment on 823
15:48:33 <TallTed> q+
15:48:47 <phila_> manu: I don't think we can close this. It comes into the data integrity and VP side. It's on the edge of protocol, but I don't think we can close it
15:48:57 <phila_> ... It's likely to end up the DI spec
15:49:04 <phila_> [DI = data Integrity]
15:49:05 <brentz> ack TallTed
15:49:30 <kristina> q+
15:49:35 <phila_> TallTed: I'm mostly fine with that. If we're still including Nonce in the examples the we should say why it's still here, go see the spec over there
15:49:43 <brentz> ack kristina
15:49:45 <phila_> brentz: I'll remove the pending closed tag and make it DI?
15:50:18 <phila_> kristina: I would say it will go in the JWT VC spec too
15:50:23 <phila_> brentz: I can add those labels
15:50:27 <manu> yeah, +1 it should be mentioned in JWT-VC spec as well.
15:50:30 <DavidC> q+
15:50:38 <brentz> ack DavidC
15:51:04 <phila_> DavidC: I did add some text into the data model 1.1 so there is some text there talking about the nonce that wasn't in 1.0, but more detail needs to go into the v2 spec
15:51:14 <manu> Fundamentally, challenge is provided by the server... domain and nonce are provided by the client
15:51:18 <phila_> ... but if examples are being pulled out then the text will also go
15:51:22 <phila_> brentz: I will add the labels
15:51:42 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/791
15:52:02 <manu> +1 to close :)
15:52:10 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to close
15:52:19 <oliver> +1 close
15:52:20 <TallTed> +1 to close
15:52:21 <phila_> brentz: This was a proposal that the spec be re-titled "W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials" kristina and I think this is highly unlikely
15:52:31 <ivan> +1 close
15:52:32 <phila_> brentz: So we tagged it as pending closed
15:52:36 <phila_> phila_: +1
15:52:52 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/248
15:52:56 <tplooker> A document with the name consensus in it cant get consensus!
15:53:03 <tplooker> +1 to close
15:53:07 <phila_> brentz: This has received some back and forth alongside another PR
15:53:35 <phila_> ... The proposal here is that we add some summary text/meta info that would allow the issuer or the holder to indicate "this is what this credential is about"
15:53:37 <tplooker> if only consensus were so easy :)
15:53:48 <phila_> brentz: A 'summary property' could be useful
15:54:00 <phila_> brentz: I suggested that PR752 addressed this, but it seems not
15:54:12 <manu> +1 to PR that tplooker raised as addressing this.
15:54:13 <manu> q+
15:54:18 <phila_> brentz: There some folks on the call who raised comments...
15:54:28 <brentz> ack manu
15:54:30 <TallTed> q+
15:54:34 <phila_> manu: My understanding of Tobias's proposal is to add name and decsription
15:54:34 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/752
15:54:40 <phila_> manu: I'd say the decription is the summary
15:54:47 <phila_> manu: Do we need name, description and summary?
15:54:57 <phila_> manu: There are some preliminary proposals for rendering
15:54:59 <ivan> q+
15:55:04 <tplooker> q+
15:55:16 <phila_> manu: if we can't describe the difference between summary and description then go with tplooker
15:55:17 <brentz> ack TallTed
15:55:35 <phila_> TallTed: It seems the me the issuer will have no idea what pet name the holder may use
15:55:39 <DavidC> q+
15:55:49 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say this isn't about petnames
15:55:51 <phila_> TallTed: The pet name might go into an envelope that contains the credential but that's not within the VC
15:55:59 <brentz> ack ivan
15:56:04 <manu> -1 to petnames in VCs... associated metadata, fine, but that's a Holder preference.
15:56:07 <phila_> ivan: That was a bit of a discussion on the pull request, not the issue
15:56:19 <phila_> ivan: Are these additional metadata things to be signed/normalised?
15:56:50 <oliver> q+
15:56:54 <manu> -1 for "bag of metadata" :) -- like, we have a mechanism for semantics... let's use those.
15:56:57 <phila_> ivan: That's relevant because one way is to define a bunch of properties. The other way is to say there is a single metadata property that points to a bunch of stuff that is not part of the credetnial
15:57:16 <phila_> ivan: Personally I'd prefer to separate the metadata from the core set of statements, but we have to decide on that
15:57:19 <tplooker> yeah I agree with manu
15:57:19 <brentz> q?
15:57:29 <phila_> ivan: If you don't want to sign it then it's separate
15:58:04 <phila_> brentz: No time for all coments here. Please add your comments to the issue (not the PR)
15:58:05 <brentz> ack tplooker
15:58:25 <phila_> tplooker: The original proposal is to add name and description. I see description and summary as synonyms.
15:58:45 <phila_> tplooker: The other clarification - it is proof format-specific, but it's issuer-signed
15:58:57 <phila_> ... I don't think that stops a wallet also assigning a pet name
15:59:14 <phila_> kristina: Thanks everyone
15:59:16 <manu> +1 to what tplooker just said.
15:59:38 <phila_> kristina: We're running out of time, so DavidC, JoeAndrieu oliver please comment on the issue.
15:59:43 <phila_> kristina: Sorry we're over time
15:59:47 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/27-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
16:00:00 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:00:00 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been decentralgabe, phila_, ivan, kristina, manu, TallTed, cel, oliver_terbu, davidc, JoeAndrieu, sam_smith, steve_cole, kerri, markus, marty,
16:00:03 <Zakim> ... kdeangs1, will_abramson, brent, brentz, tplooker, juancaballero, aisp, tony, gnatran
16:00:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/27-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
16:00:05 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:00:10 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
16:00:48 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:00:48 <RRSAgent> I see no action items