00:15:47 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
00:42:25 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
04:16:33 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
14:46:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:46:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/03-vcwg-irc
14:46:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:46:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:46:23 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:46:24 <ivan> Date: 2023-05-03
14:46:24 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/99390229-dcf2-4605-8679-1ec6498b446b
14:46:24 <ivan> chair: brent
14:46:24 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-05-03: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/99390229-dcf2-4605-8679-1ec6498b446b
14:46:25 <ivan> regrets: griffin
14:52:14 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
14:57:31 <ivan> present+
14:59:25 <przemek> przemek has joined #vcwg
14:59:32 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:00:06 <brent> present+
15:00:06 <ivan> present+ brent
15:00:10 <ivan> present+ tallted
15:00:36 <hsano> present +
15:00:37 <shigeya> present+
15:00:45 <ivan> present+ pauld, kristina
15:00:55 <ivan> present+ hsano
15:01:27 <ivan> present+ andres
15:01:49 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg
15:02:08 <ivan> present+ Przemek
15:02:16 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:02:32 <ivan> present+ awhitehead
15:02:48 <andres> present+
15:03:38 <awhitehead> awhitehead has joined #vcwg
15:03:48 <PDL_ASU> PDL_ASU has joined #vcwg
15:03:50 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:04:01 <selfissued> present+
15:04:01 <PDL_ASU> present+
15:04:07 <ivan> present+ orie
15:04:07 <ivan> present+ oliver
15:04:11 <hsano> present+
15:04:13 <dlongley> present+
15:04:31 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
15:04:33 <oliver> oliver has joined #vcwg
15:04:38 <oliver> present+
15:04:46 <oliver> scribe+
15:04:57 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:05:06 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
15:05:07 <oliver> brent: agenda for today
15:05:10 <oliver> ... agenda review
15:05:28 <oliver> ... PR primarily in VCDM + work item status updates and with whatever time is remaining we will discuss issues
15:05:30 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg
15:05:40 <Orie> present+
15:05:49 <oliver> ... we also had one proposal for FPWD
15:05:57 <oliver> ... any other topics folks have for today?
15:06:01 <oliver> ... intros?
15:06:07 <kristina> kristina has joined #vcwg
15:06:07 <ivan> present+ dwaite
15:06:10 <kristina> present+
15:06:19 <ivan> present+ will
15:06:32 <ivan> present+ gnatran
15:06:36 <brent> Topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
15:06:37 <oliver> ... work item status updates and PRs
15:06:48 <will> will has joined #vcwg
15:06:51 <oliver> ... we will move into proposal first
15:06:53 <brent> Topic: Proposal
15:07:04 <oliver> ... Orie, do you have text for proposal?
15:07:11 <oliver> orie: i do not, we should construct
15:07:15 <oliver> ... but can do intro
15:07:30 <greg_natran> greg_natran has joined #vcwg
15:07:34 <oliver> ... we have adopted work item called VC Data Integrity BBS
15:07:37 <oliver> ... will share link
15:07:44 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-bbs
15:07:46 <oliver> ... had several rounds of cleanup since adopted
15:07:51 <oliver> ... and issue grooming
15:08:04 <oliver> ... good discussions in key areas where we want to do work and risks
15:08:27 <oliver> ... tobias and orie both believe it is important that this is worked on
15:08:36 <oliver> ... ask for FPWD
15:08:45 <oliver> ... to start clock and continue work that is already happening
15:08:53 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:09:02 <oliver> brent: i'm constructing text for proposal but need get formal name of spec
15:09:43 <oliver> ... is there an FPWD version yet?
15:10:30 <oliver> orie: is the expectations to prepare a FPWD before asking group?
15:10:34 <oliver> ivan: no rule for that
15:10:40 <oliver> ivan: process is acceptable
15:11:21 <oliver> ivan: should work
15:11:59 <brent> Proposal: Publish the Securing VCs with BBS specification as a First Public Working Draft with a short name of vc-di-bbs with a target publication date of May 18th 2023
15:12:02 <brent> +1
15:12:03 <Orie> +1
15:12:04 <oliver> brent: not anybody jumping on queue
15:12:05 <dlongley> +1
15:12:06 <oliver> +1
15:12:07 <ivan> +1
15:12:10 <shigeya> +1
15:12:11 <will> +1
15:12:12 <PDL_ASU> +1
15:12:14 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:12:15 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:12:17 <decentralgabe> +1
15:12:39 <awhitehead> +1
15:12:40 <hsano> +1
15:12:43 <greg_natran> +1
15:12:50 <dmitriz> +1
15:12:52 <oliver> brent: no objections
15:12:52 <andres> +1
15:12:55 <brent> Resolved: Publish the Securing VCs with BBS specification as a First Public Working Draft with a short name of vc-di-bbs with a target publication date of May 18th 2023
15:12:59 <Paul_Dietrich_GS1> Paul_Dietrich_GS1 has joined #vcwg
15:13:00 <oliver> ... hearing no objections, resolved
15:13:03 <ivan> present+ gabe
15:13:11 <oliver> ... next steps, orie will work with ivan to get it out
15:13:14 <Orie> Thank you, I will prepare the PR
15:13:36 <oliver> ivan: was referring to editor's draft. want to have it done before the AC meeting
15:14:06 <oliver> ... can wait until tomorrow. it should be on issue list by friday.
15:14:16 <oliver> ... you will run by usual checkers?
15:14:18 <oliver> orie: yes
15:14:22 <brent> topic: Work Item status updates/PRs
15:14:38 <oliver> brent: brief status update on each work items
15:14:46 <oliver> ... most attention today on backlog of PRs in VCDM
15:14:52 <oliver> ... just had an FPWD on bbs.
15:14:56 <oliver> ... anything else on bbs?
15:15:06 <ivan> present+ mccown
15:15:26 <oliver> orie: open PR that has a full pass on. covers substantial amount of updates
15:15:35 <oliver> ... is it ok to merge the PR before running through doc checker?
15:15:49 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-bbs/pull/86
15:16:07 <ivan> q+
15:16:08 <oliver> ... i want to direct attention to PR. a lot of stale content in the PR.
15:16:21 <brent> ack ivan
15:16:21 <oliver> ... should be advantageous to merge it
15:16:59 <oliver> orie: if merge PR then can easily issues that FPWD might surface
15:17:00 <dwaite> dwaite has joined #vcwg
15:17:51 <oliver> ivan: if you cannot finish doc by today then tomorrow we cannot run whole thing and this might be problem because next week there won't be a meeting. that might put the publishing date at risk
15:18:03 <oliver> ... unfortunate because AC meeting next week
15:18:20 <oliver> orie: PR addresses several issues. fixes linking scenarios. tha tis the part to ask for permissions to merg.
15:18:20 <ivan> present+ mirceanistor
15:18:24 <dlongley> +1 to merge this PR
15:18:30 <oliver> brent: would accelerate ability to create FPWD draft?
15:18:32 <oliver> orie: correct
15:18:50 <oliver> brent: as long as sign off by co-editor, then go for it. since FPWD we are very early on anyways.
15:18:58 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
15:19:01 <PDL_ASU> no objections here.
15:19:01 <oliver> ... any objections to that course of actions?
15:19:19 <oliver> orie: i doubt tobias (co-editor) can review this on time
15:19:24 <oliver> brent: no objections noted
15:19:40 <oliver> ... tobias' approval does not have to be super formal as long as it exists
15:19:51 <oliver> orie: if objections then i will revert it
15:19:59 <oliver> ... but unlikely there will be any
15:20:03 <oliver> brent: comfortable with that approach
15:20:11 <decentralgabe> q+ for json schema status update
15:20:13 <oliver> ... json schema updates?
15:20:25 <decentralgabe> https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema/pull/132
15:20:31 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-json-schema
15:20:33 <oliver> gabe: we have a PR up, the draft before FPWD
15:20:39 <brent> ack decentralgabe
15:20:39 <Zakim> decentralgabe, you wanted to discuss json schema status update
15:20:53 <oliver> ... incorporate a number of issues that were outstanding but it would be good to have another look
15:21:07 <oliver> brent: any comments on json schema?
15:21:19 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021
15:21:20 <oliver> ... looking at status list 2021
15:21:27 <Orie> q+
15:21:29 <oliver> ... can anybody talk to this work item?
15:21:30 <mircea_nistor> mircea_nistor has joined #vcwg
15:21:32 <brent> ack Orie
15:21:37 <oliver> orie: several open PRs
15:21:48 <oliver> ... for some no reason why we cannot merge it
15:21:54 <oliver> ... eg PR 46
15:22:11 <oliver> ... requires some changes but not clear what folks are requesting to change
15:22:15 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/46
15:22:29 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/46
15:22:38 <oliver> ... then PR 60
15:22:39 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/60
15:22:46 <oliver> ... adding JSON Web Tokens to the spec
15:22:53 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/61
15:23:00 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/62
15:23:07 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/63
15:23:09 <oliver> ... closing tags
15:23:31 <oliver> ... it would be good to have some discussions of PRs with changes requested
15:23:41 <oliver> brent: we want to have PRs merged out of call time
15:23:57 <oliver> ... if folks who need to review are not responding, pls reach out but in general avoid the need for call time to merge PRs
15:24:16 <oliver> ... if consensus cannot be found in the comments of 46 then we can have call time but ideally we won't need it
15:24:24 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-eddsa
15:24:31 <oliver> ... next work item is data integrity eddsa
15:24:41 <oliver> ... anyone can update on this work item?
15:24:52 <oliver> ... dmitri?
15:25:04 <oliver> dmitri: no updates at the moment
15:25:15 <oliver> ... ongoing work, will keep folks posted
15:25:19 <oliver> brent: moving to
15:25:21 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-di-ecdsa
15:25:25 <oliver> ... ecdsa for data integrity
15:25:38 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:25:43 <oliver> ... in absence of editors we skip
15:25:50 <oliver> ... and let's go to data integrity now
15:25:51 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity
15:25:59 <oliver> ... any updates?
15:26:05 <selfissued> In https://github.com/w3c/vc-status-list-2021/pull/46, I'm asking for the spec to use the HTTP 404 (Not Found) error code.  Is there a reason that isn't reasonable?
15:26:51 <oliver> dave: PRs coming along nicely, a couple of deprecation things for vocab which are approved. so those might be getting merged if no objections
15:27:24 <oliver> ... work continues on other issues
15:27:33 <oliver> ... any questions on data integrity?
15:27:35 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/77
15:27:43 <oliver> brent: moving to vc jwt spec
15:27:46 <Orie> q+
15:28:02 <brent> ack Orie
15:28:03 <oliver> orie: can cover it
15:28:13 <oliver> ... mike p has made a pass on vc jwt and there is a lot of content he is updating
15:28:18 <oliver> ... large PR but very much needed
15:28:30 <oliver> ... spec feels light and a lot of paragraphs build out the feeling of the spec
15:28:50 <oliver> ... personally don't like those sections but acknowledges that other readers prefer that
15:28:59 <oliver> ... a few unresolved suggestions but my feedback is non-blocking
15:29:09 <oliver> ... kristina has requested changes but not sure if mike addressed them?
15:29:21 <oliver> brent: kristina will re-revieww
15:29:34 <oliver> ... anything else that is vc jwt related that editors want to cover?
15:29:54 <oliver> ... next up is core spec
15:29:58 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
15:30:05 <oliver> ... PRs
15:30:30 <oliver> ... for some of these we are at the point whether consensus is possible
15:30:39 <oliver> ... if not possible, then suggesting closing PRs
15:30:50 <oliver> ... first PR we are going to look at today
15:30:55 <oliver> ... PR 1035
15:30:57 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1035
15:31:04 <oliver> ... rendering property
15:31:12 <oliver> ... a few approvals, a copule of folks requesting changes
15:31:29 <oliver> ... my read is that this will be addressed by rendering property being added to the table of reserved properties
15:31:36 <oliver> ... so anticipate being resolved by that
15:31:47 <oliver> ... so, i don't assume we need conversation on that
15:31:55 <Orie> There is also a new CCG work item proposal for the rendering property https://github.com/w3c-ccg/community/issues/244
15:31:58 <oliver> ... if no conversation, we can move on
15:32:05 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1023
15:32:07 <oliver> ... nobody wanted to speak to that
15:32:13 <oliver> ... next up is PR 1023
15:32:32 <oliver> brent: gabe, what needs to be done to move this forward?
15:32:41 <kristina> PR 1035 should be closed when rendering gets added to the reserved table
15:32:44 <oliver> gabe: some discussion whether there should be a single credential schema possible per credential
15:33:00 <oliver> ... or something else
15:33:15 <oliver> ... i want to have one defined in the VCDM
15:33:26 <oliver> ... but need to discuss what people think
15:33:28 <dlongley> q+
15:33:36 <brent> ack dlongley
15:33:44 <oliver> dave: we already have mechanism for starting a set
15:33:52 <oliver> ... for the case where we have more than one thing in the data model
15:33:59 <decentralgabe> q+ to speak about complexity of multiple schemas
15:34:10 <oliver> ... if we are saying if we want to support either way, ability to have multiple schemas in a VC, i would expect to use that mechanism
15:34:18 <Orie> The current JSON-LD context does not define credentialSchema as a container... https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/main/contexts/credentials/v2#L18
15:34:35 <oliver> ... if not, if different credential schema types can become multitype schemas then i would expect that somebody creates a multi purpose mechanism
15:34:46 <Orie> q+
15:34:46 <oliver> ... i don't know if we need to invent a new thing to do that
15:34:55 <brent> ack decentralgabe
15:34:55 <Zakim> decentralgabe, you wanted to speak about complexity of multiple schemas
15:34:56 <oliver> ... not sure about the arguments and what are tradeoffs?
15:35:07 <oliver> gabe: not exactly an accurate representation
15:35:40 <oliver> ... arguing for keeping complexitiy in specific type specifications
15:35:54 <oliver> ... that is the purpose of having types for defining processing logic
15:35:56 <brent> ack Orie
15:36:00 <oliver> ... want to avoid complextiy in data model
15:36:03 <oliver> orie: agree with gabe
15:36:57 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:37:06 <oliver> ... dave is aruging that json-ld expansion can handle all of that
15:37:25 <oliver> ... how to deal with polymorphism
15:38:09 <brent> q+
15:38:38 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:39:17 <oliver> ... let's not do any json-ld processing
15:39:30 <brent> ack brent
15:40:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:40:36 <decentralgabe> correct @brent
15:40:39 <dlongley> q+ to say use of one or more schemas is up to the verifier, not the VC data model spec
15:40:39 <oliver> brent: if i understand correctly if multiple schemas are present and the processing rules that then apply that we limit schemas to a single schema differentiated by types, so processing rules for single schema can be defined by the type and we also reconigze that multiple schemas can be developed by having a composed schema
15:40:44 <oliver> ... fair summary?
15:40:49 <oliver> q+
15:41:07 <oliver> ... is this something we can come to some agreement?
15:41:08 <brent> ack dlongley
15:41:08 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say use of one or more schemas is up to the verifier, not the VC data model spec
15:41:21 <oliver> dave: i don't know where i am at on this issue in particular
15:41:22 <dmitriz> q+
15:41:29 <oliver> ... json-ld is sort of red herring
15:41:50 <Orie> We are basically saying what is legal value for `credentialSchema`... object, array string or all of them.
15:42:07 <oliver> ... json-ld processors will find out a way to handle that no matter what we put into the spec
15:42:08 <Orie> +1 dlongley
15:42:16 <oliver> ... whether or not schemas are used is up to verifier
15:42:34 <Orie> Sounds like we don't need to say anything if the verifier just knows how to do JSON-LD processing.
15:42:36 <oliver> ... we can keep the data model simple and we can still put specific rules in specific type spec
15:42:48 <oliver> ... and then up to verifier if follows rule or not
15:42:54 <Orie> scribe+
15:43:07 <brent> ack oliver
15:43:36 <Orie> oliver: I am in favor of keeping complexity on the `type` side.
15:43:36 <oliver> q-
15:43:42 <brent> ack dmitriz
15:43:43 <oliver> scribe+
15:43:50 <oliver> dmitri: initial thought
15:44:07 <oliver> ... multiple items in cred schema was initially confusing. but then realized that
15:44:20 <oliver> ... easy to understand example is different schema languages where multiple schemas would make sense
15:44:24 <dlongley> +1 to dmitriz, multiple schema languages
15:44:36 <decentralgabe> dmitri, that can easily be handled *within* a type
15:44:48 <oliver> ... shacl schema or json schema or whatever schema language other come up with
15:44:48 <dlongley> decentralgabe: a new "multi" type will just need to be invented
15:44:50 <Orie> sure, so we say `credentialSchema` supports array, object or string... and let `type` handle multiple langauges?
15:45:00 <oliver> ... question is if we need to specify and or or semantic for that field
15:45:01 <Orie> and the core data model does not comment on the complexity?
15:45:07 <decentralgabe> yes, multi type > complex rules in the data model
15:45:13 <oliver> brent: encourage folks to have that conversation
15:45:14 <dmitriz> @Orie - that seems reasonable
15:45:16 <dlongley> data model doesn't need those rules regardless
15:45:21 <oliver> ... we would like to have this PR to move forward
15:45:27 <oliver> ... moving to next PR
15:45:34 <oliver> ... presentation schema
15:45:37 <Orie> seems like we are really just saying "the core data model is JSON-LD" with extra words.
15:45:47 <oliver> ... will probably also addressed by table of reserved properties, so we skip it
15:45:48 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1083
15:45:48 <dmitriz> @decentralgabe - re "multiple schemas can be handled within a type" -- yeah, that's true too
15:45:51 <oliver> ... next up is PR 1083
15:46:04 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:46:05 <Orie> q+
15:46:14 <brent> ack Orie
15:46:41 <oliver> orie: default vocab expansion in v2 context. it is there to make v2 context usage easier. this PR is about vocab expansion.
15:47:28 <oliver> ... we are trying to give good guidance
15:48:06 <oliver> ... cleaning up PR
15:48:28 <oliver> brent: feels like this PR is making progress. what are next steps?
15:48:43 <oliver> orie: additional reviews would be helpful
15:48:49 <oliver> ... want to remove JS from page
15:48:54 <oliver> ... to prevent xss
15:49:05 <oliver> ... no json-ld IRIs on the page
15:49:12 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1066
15:49:18 <oliver> brent: next up is PR 1066
15:49:25 <Orie> q+
15:49:29 <oliver> ... request for changes from manu but not here
15:49:32 <oliver> orie: goals
15:49:38 <brent> ack Orie
15:49:42 <oliver> ... technical recommendation contains malformed JSON-LD
15:49:51 <oliver> ... PR intends to remove 404
15:50:15 <oliver> ... manu and dave and potentially others have a model of what example they'd like to see examples in the core spec
15:50:20 <oliver> ... examples that contain multiple contexts
15:50:27 <oliver> ... but i don't like examples with multiple contexts
15:50:30 <dlongley> q+ to say something different
15:50:43 <oliver> ... just having some conversation on different opinions on examples
15:50:58 <brent> ack dlongley
15:50:58 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say something different
15:51:05 <oliver> dave: just quick clarification
15:51:11 <oliver> ... we should have examples of both
15:51:22 <oliver> ... first examples should be issuer independent vocabs
15:51:28 <Orie> I am also in favor of examples of both, as I stated.
15:51:48 <brent> q?
15:51:48 <oliver> ... and then issuer dependent vocabs but we should also say that this could be a risk
15:51:54 <brent> q+
15:51:57 <Orie> Not sure I agree regarding the "market failures" statement
15:52:06 <Orie> but i look forward to reviewing text that elaborates on that.
15:52:23 <oliver> ... we should fix context instead of deleting them from examples
15:52:24 <brent> ack brent
15:52:32 <oliver> brent: two paths possible
15:52:47 <oliver> ... one PR gets merged and then issue gets created
15:52:47 <Orie> There are already open issues that track handling examples.
15:53:05 <oliver> ... agree that the links in the examples should work
15:53:08 <dlongley> q+
15:53:17 <oliver> ... the other option is to create another PR that fixes the broken links
15:53:25 <brent> ack dlongley
15:53:27 <oliver> dave:
15:53:31 <oliver> ... another PR somewhere
15:53:37 <oliver> ... to define an examples v2 context
15:53:42 <oliver> ... that has examples vocab in it
15:53:46 <oliver> ... not looked into it recently
15:53:49 <oliver> ... but if gets traction
15:53:52 <oliver> ... then we can merge that
15:53:56 <oliver> ... because fixes broken links
15:54:01 <oliver> ... and then can iterate on context
15:54:01 <Orie> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1111
15:54:05 <oliver> ... to improve examples
15:54:09 <Orie> ^ that is the PR he is refering too
15:54:10 <oliver> brent: orie?
15:54:22 <oliver> orie: haven't had a chance to review it
15:54:37 <dlongley> i think it's this one actually? ... double checking... https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1110
15:54:58 <oliver> brent: other PRs will be possibly addressed by reserved properties table
15:55:12 <oliver> ... currently two PRs, 1097 and 1108
15:55:14 <dlongley> yeah, it's PR 1110 that i was mentioning.
15:55:17 <oliver> ... attempting to add properties to table
15:55:26 <oliver> ... encouring to review those PRs
15:55:46 <ivan> q+
15:55:58 <brent> ack ivan
15:56:42 <oliver> ivan:  in calendar invite i changed already to use new zoom url. please don't put URL in public channel.
15:56:57 <oliver> ... refresh calendars if you are subscribing to W3C calendars
15:56:59 <oliver> ... new URL is there
15:57:20 <oliver> brent: please refresh invites to get the new zoom URL
15:58:06 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/03-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:58:26 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
15:58:26 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ivan, brent, tallted, shigeya, pauld, kristina, hsano, andres, Przemek, dmitriz, awhitehead, selfissued, PDL_ASU, orie, oliver, dlongley,
15:58:29 <Zakim> ... jandrieu, dwaite, will, gnatran, gabe, mccown, mirceanistor
15:58:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:58:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/03-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim
15:58:37 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:58:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
15:58:39 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
16:32:02 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
17:27:18 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
17:33:32 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
18:07:06 <ivan> ivan has joined #vcwg
18:14:59 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #vcwg
18:28:37 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
19:06:38 <ivan> ivan has joined #vcwg
20:10:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
20:18:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
20:18:13 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
20:19:16 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
20:22:37 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
20:23:53 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
20:25:59 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
20:28:43 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
20:30:41 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
20:46:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
20:52:33 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
20:54:20 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
20:56:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
21:18:05 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
22:54:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
23:10:51 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
23:15:25 <manu_> manu_ has joined #vcwg
23:34:43 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
23:35:46 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #vcwg
23:45:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
23:52:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
23:59:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg