21:52:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special
21:52:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/08/01-vcwg-special-irc
21:53:34 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: VCWG Special Topic Meeting Agenda 2023-08-01: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/eaf86734-c2f9-410e-86b9-1cca18d0d6c9/20230801T180000/
21:53:44 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
21:53:44 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
21:53:46 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
21:53:53 <brent> meeting: VCWG Special Topic Call
21:54:00 <brent> chair: Brent Zundel
21:58:18 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg-special
21:59:09 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg-special
22:00:41 <brent> present+
22:01:08 <seabass> present+
22:01:21 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:10 <dmitriz> present+
22:02:15 <hsano> present+
22:02:17 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:20 <decentralgabe> present+
22:02:22 <Kristina> Kristina has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:23 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:25 <Kristina> present+
22:02:32 <JoeAndrieu> present+
22:02:33 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:37 <selfissued> present+
22:03:10 <dmitriz> scribe+
22:03:23 <manu> present+
22:04:06 <brent> Topic: PRs
22:04:16 <dmitriz> brent: We're going to process some PRs, and then hopefully issues!
22:04:29 <shigeya> prssent+
22:04:37 <andres> andres has joined #vcwg-special
22:04:39 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3Abefore-CR+sort%3Aupdated-asc
22:04:45 <andres> present+
22:04:54 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+-label%3A%22pending+close%22+-label%3Adiscuss+sort%3Aupdated-asc
22:05:13 <dmitriz> brent: this is all of our open PRs, minus the 'do not merge' ones
22:05:19 <TallTed> this link was in the agenda... https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3A%22DO+NOT+MERGE%22
22:05:26 <manu> q+
22:05:34 <dmitriz> brent: let's look at PR 1200
22:05:38 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1200
22:05:46 <brent> ack manu
22:05:52 <TallTed> q+
22:05:54 <dmitriz> manu: this has a number of agreements, but I think Orie is objecting
22:05:59 <dmitriz> ... I asked to clarify, waiting to hear back
22:06:00 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #vcwg-special
22:06:17 <dmitriz> ... feels like a fairly straightforward change. what Ivan is doing here is, the other sections of this thing are normative,
22:06:27 <dmitriz> ... and he's setting this one as normative as well
22:06:36 <dmitriz> ... Orie is saying "I would rather that we explicitly declare it as normative"
22:06:54 <brent> ack TallTed
22:07:30 <dmitriz> TallTed: lacking Orie (tho he might not agree regardless), the issue appears to be partly how ReSpec handles things
22:07:44 <dmitriz> ... so, we can't explicitly declare appendixes to be normative
22:08:02 <dmitriz> ... given the rest of the document, like the top says "Everything is normative, unless marked as informative"
22:08:06 <manu> q+
22:08:08 <dmitriz> ... so, I don't think there's a change to be made
22:08:12 <manu> q-
22:08:20 <dmitriz> brent: my read of Orie's comments is not that he's requesting changes, just giving clarifications
22:08:35 <dmitriz> ... he's had plenty of time since then to continue to review. I'm comfortable with the approvals moving forward & merging this
22:08:48 <dmitriz> ... I don't want to get too formal, but we could do resolutions if folks are more comfortable with that
22:08:51 <manu> +1 to merge as-is.
22:08:53 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to merge
22:09:07 <brent> q?
22:09:08 <dmitriz> brent: not hearing any objections, queue is empty
22:09:18 <dmitriz> brent: let's move on to next issue
22:09:29 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1199
22:09:30 <dmitriz> brent: issue 1199, Add Validation Section regarding Holder
22:09:44 <dmitriz> ... I see TallTed and JoeAndrieu specifically requested changes. Have they been addressed?
22:09:50 <dmitriz> ... if not, what would you like to still see?
22:10:23 <dmitriz> ... the last note from Orie, couple weeks ago saying "Joe I think I got all your suggestions"
22:10:37 <dmitriz> TallTed: I think I still have open questions to a few people
22:10:52 <dmitriz> ... at least to Orie, and to Joe at different points, basically saying "what change would you want this to have?"
22:10:56 <dmitriz> ... and also - "what was this supposed to mean?"
22:11:14 <dmitriz> ... there are several lines of defined expressions that I tweaked, but I wasn't clear what they meant to say
22:11:25 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I have to echo that; I didn't quite understand what Orie was trying to say
22:11:43 <dmitriz> brent: I recommend you view the text as it exists now, see if there's any greater clarity there
22:11:51 <dmitriz> ... is that something you can do?
22:11:58 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: will review again
22:12:43 <dmitriz> TallTed: the pieces that I referred to haven't changed (the "define expressions of"). I pinged Orie at the end
22:12:48 <dmitriz> brent: ok, moving to next PR
22:12:58 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1142
22:13:00 <manu> q+
22:13:09 <dmitriz> ... this one's 1142, Add ConfidenceMethod to table of reserved terms
22:13:18 <dmitriz> ... it was being held up till the URLs actually resolved, I believe they do now
22:13:20 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg-special
22:13:34 <dmitriz> ... any reason not to just merge?
22:13:47 <dmitriz> ... (not the PR, the requested changes)
22:14:02 <dmitriz> brent: Manu has one that fixes the URL, TallTed has another one that
22:14:07 <brent> ack manu
22:14:23 <dmitriz> manu: I was going to suggest, this was before Ted's change, if we could just merge both of these suggestions, we can merge the PR
22:14:38 <dmitriz> ... we're waiting on Orie to process them
22:15:01 <dmitriz> TallTed: that's not all, there is - in a Jun 6 comment, there's a URL to vc confidence method that's still 404
22:15:07 <dmitriz> manu: I did a change suggestion to that, to fix it
22:15:25 <dmitriz> brent: ok, I'm very confident that we can add Manu's change suggestion
22:15:37 <dmitriz> ... and roughly confident that we can add Ted's. waiting on official thumbs-up from Orie
22:15:47 <dmitriz> ... but also don't want this PR blocked.
22:16:11 <dmitriz> brent: manu, will you take an action to merge your change suggestion, fixing the PR? I can change my request into an approval
22:16:17 <dmitriz> ... and we can ping Orie to look at Ted's suggestions
22:16:27 <dmitriz> manu: I've merged my URL change
22:16:32 <dmitriz> brent: excellent, I marked PR as approved
22:16:42 <dmitriz> ... any folks on the call who have yet to review any of these PRs, please do so
22:16:59 <dmitriz> ... if you don't, things may get merged that you haven't had a chance to review -- we need to be brisk now
22:17:11 <dmitriz> ... moving on, next one is 1212
22:17:25 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1212
22:17:37 <dmitriz> ... this is 'Refer to VC Specs Dir for Proof Types'. two change requests, from Orie and Sebastian
22:17:47 <dmitriz> ... Sebastian, have your changes been addressed?
22:17:54 <dmitriz> seabass: let me look..
22:18:05 <dmitriz> ... yes, those are fine, works for me
22:18:19 <dmitriz> brent: manu, looks like Orie has a change suggestion, if you could ..
22:18:32 <dmitriz> manu: I think I disagree with the change suggestion, mainly because the request was to refer to the VC Specs Dir
22:18:44 <dmitriz> ... not to remove links to the securing specifications we're working on here
22:19:05 <dmitriz> ... my concern is that we would be .. that the question that the PR is trying to address in 1105 is - how should we refer to the securing specs?
22:19:28 <dmitriz> ... in other PRs, we said we're going to talk about the securing specs of this WG, we're just going to mention them, and also say there may be other ways to secure the VCs, and those will be in the specs dir
22:19:40 <dmitriz> ... so, the JOSE/COSE stuff, the DI stuff, and for other securing specs, go look in the directory
22:19:42 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to using the VC specs dir as a registry
22:19:54 <dmitriz> ... Orie's change req would be to /not/ mention the securing specs this WG is working on
22:20:09 <dmitriz> ... but only refer to the specs dir, some of which the group has not worked on at all
22:20:14 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
22:20:14 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to using the VC specs dir as a registry
22:20:20 <brent> q+ seabass
22:20:27 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I'm concerned about the position you're taking here, Manu
22:21:07 <dmitriz> ... seems to be saying that a method is required to be a directory
22:21:22 <dmitriz> manu: that's not the intent. we're just saying - securing mechanisms exist. Here's two examples. Others are in the specs dir.
22:21:35 <dmitriz> s/to be a directory/to be in a directory/
22:21:41 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I'll take another look
22:21:51 <brent> ack seabass
22:21:51 <dmitriz> brent: I took the liberty to add you to the queue
22:21:58 <dmitriz> seabass: thank you, I think my comment has been addressed
22:22:23 <dmitriz> brent: next steps.. we have a change request from Orie. Joe is reviewing..
22:22:38 <dmitriz> ... Manu, if at least you could respond to Orie's change req with the things you mentioned today, that'd be valuable
22:22:42 <TallTed> q+
22:22:53 <dmitriz> manu: or we could accept it, I don't hear anyone arguing against not mentioning at all
22:23:13 <dmitriz> ... the first objection was "you say there's securing mechanisms, but not providing examples". So we added examples, and that PR went in
22:23:18 <dmitriz> ... and now Orie is saying we should remove that.
22:23:29 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say I support this, as is, notwithstanding my comment
22:23:30 <dmitriz> ... and if we do that, we'll have no examples again
22:23:52 <dmitriz> ... and won't have a link to the vc specs dir, or external mechanisms
22:23:55 <brent> ack TallTed
22:24:05 <dmitriz> TallTed: just reading this over, Manu, I think you're mistaken as to what it currently says
22:24:18 <JoeAndrieu> q-
22:24:24 <dmitriz> ... it says, if present, proof value should be .. [ quote follows ]
22:24:37 <dmitriz> ... now, it's only a SHOULD, it does allow for whatever private or public deployment
22:24:45 <dmitriz> ... but it does say that you SHOULD use one that's in the directory
22:24:53 <dmitriz> manu: ah, I see the reading you're referring to
22:25:03 <dmitriz> ... also don't see VC-JWT or VC-JOSE/COSE
22:25:21 <dmitriz> brent: sounds like there's a bit of tweaking needed
22:25:22 <dmitriz> manu: yes
22:25:37 <dmitriz> brent: sufficient steps taken, lets move on to 1215
22:25:41 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1215
22:25:58 <dmitriz> brent: Update Term Definition for VC JSON Schema as creds, raised by Gabe, so far no reviews
22:26:06 <dmitriz> ... Gabe, can you talk us through this PR?
22:26:39 <dmitriz> decentralgabe: there is a change to the naming of the credential representation of the JSON Schema VC, which this PR addresses
22:26:51 <dmitriz> ... there's also docs on how to use the `@json` property in the JSON Schema credential
22:27:05 <dmitriz> ... so, two small changes - to use a type, and to represent a json schema in the credentialSubject property of the VC
22:27:10 <dmitriz> brent: thank you, seem straightforward
22:27:13 <manu> q+
22:27:19 <brent> ack manu
22:27:38 <dmitriz> manu: Gabe, I was waiting for you to update before reviewing, I thought you'd get rid of the datestamp stuff. (I just added a request)
22:27:54 <dmitriz> ... in StatusList, looks like we're getting rid of the datetime stamp
22:28:08 <dmitriz> ... you're putting the vocab definition for JSON Schema into the spec, but not any vocabulary file
22:28:17 <dmitriz> ... not sure if you meant to put it into the VC DM vocab, or create a separate one
22:28:32 <dmitriz> ... the current state - the URL might not resolve over time, that would be bad
22:28:36 <dmitriz> ... anyways, I left comments
22:28:52 <dmitriz> decentralgabe: not intentional. I know Ivan has another PR opened, 1218, that does add it to vocab
22:29:02 <dmitriz> manu: it's sufficient if you just use the vocab term from that PR
22:29:19 <dmitriz> decentralgabe: happy to delay the merge, till the VC JSON Spec removes the year; I didn't want to be the first one to do that
22:29:21 <manu> q+
22:29:34 <brent> ack manu
22:29:49 <dmitriz> manu: you don't have to wait, if you're gonna update the JSON Schema spec, you can do both in parallel
22:30:04 <dmitriz> ... so this PR can go in. (remove the date, update to the vocab url Ivan created in the other PR, and you're good to go)
22:30:09 <dmitriz> decentralgabe: thanks, will do
22:30:24 <dmitriz> brent: Gabe is quick to respond, so changes will be in very soon, so folks, review those
22:30:29 <dmitriz> ... any more comments on this PR?
22:30:37 <Kristina> Kristina has joined #vcwg-special
22:30:42 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1211
22:30:42 <dmitriz> ... next PR is 1211
22:30:56 <dmitriz> ... Clarify that some abstract concepts are not realized in implementations
22:31:07 <dmitriz> ... this has a couple approvals, decent conversations, one request for changes from Ted.
22:31:13 <dmitriz> ... Ted, has that been addressed?
22:31:18 <dmitriz> TallTed: I have to read it over again
22:31:54 <dmitriz> brent: I reviewed and approved, and support Manu's suggestion that perhaps Ted, perhaps your recommended change could be discussed in a separate issue
22:32:05 <dmitriz> TallTed: yeah, I think that's the direction we're going. I'll open the new issue
22:32:11 <dmitriz> brent: thanks. any other comments?
22:32:14 <manu> q+
22:32:21 <brent> ack manu
22:32:32 <dmitriz> manu: I hesitated to merge this, I didn't know what David Chadwick was going for
22:32:40 <dmitriz> ... waiting for specific change requests
22:32:48 <dmitriz> brent: I understood his comment to mean he was agreeing with things above
22:33:15 <dmitriz> manu: he also said "one of the purposes of this PR was to differentiate between a VC and a VP", so agreeing on the difference is crucial
22:33:27 <dmitriz> ... does that mean he's saying we haven't decided, or..?
22:33:46 <dmitriz> brent: that's fine, if David objects, we'll handle those cases in our workflow
22:34:11 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1202
22:34:13 <dmitriz> ... moving to next PR, 1202
22:34:29 <dmitriz> brent: Add Section on JSON Processing, all approvals except for one change req from Kristina
22:35:34 <dmitriz> Kristina: [.. garbled ] bottom line is, you can achieve the same result via JSON-LD processing
22:35:36 <manu> q+
22:35:43 <dmitriz> ... that whole section, the 3-4 paragraphs, makes me nervous
22:35:56 <dmitriz> brent: I do see a smaller change suggestion, looks like Ted made a modification to
22:36:00 <brent> ack manu
22:36:31 <dmitriz> manu: so there's a number of positive reviews on this. Implementations are doing this today. I believe the things that are stated here are true, since that's the whole point behind JSON-LD, that you can process things this way
22:36:32 <Kristina> q+
22:36:44 <dmitriz> ... it was a very conscious design choice. So, we're just reminding that it's a valid operating mode
22:36:55 <dmitriz> ... that if you do these things, the semantic interpretation is the same, between JSON-LD and JSON.
22:37:08 <dmitriz> ... not because of anything in this WG, just because this was how JSON-LD was designed to work in the beginning
22:37:31 <dmitriz> ... so my concern is that your change request just deletes all the statements of how you can process JSON-LD (like current implementations are doing). If we delete that stuff, it guts the section
22:37:32 <brent> q+ to would it work to point to json-ld spec instead of re-stating.?
22:37:38 <dmitriz> ... so I'm a -1 on taking those changes.
22:37:53 <dmitriz> ... the changes above that Ted modified seem like it can work, but the wording ends up being a bit more complicated than it needs to be
22:38:27 <brent> ack Kristina
22:38:29 <dmitriz> ... if you are concerned about this, or it makes you uneasy, concrete change suggestions would be helpful. but deleting core contents of the section is not something that'd go over well
22:38:57 <dmitriz> Kristina: is that an option, to move that chunk to the Implementers Doc?
22:39:03 <dmitriz> ... the Guidelines doc?
22:39:21 <dmitriz> ... and add a sentence below, something like "this is when you can do JSON processing..." with bullet points
22:39:23 <manu> q+
22:39:26 <dmitriz> ... and point to the implementers guide
22:39:28 <brent> ack brent
22:39:28 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to would it work to point to json-ld spec instead of re-stating.?
22:39:50 <dmitriz> brent: would it work to point to the JSON-LD spec -- I believe it talks about the processing, would it be sufficient to point there, in addition to impl guide?
22:39:50 <brent> ack manu
22:40:18 <dmitriz> manu: both of these things are possibilities, the reason this PR was raised was because a number of people, when they saw us remove the JSON processing parts of the spec, came to the conclusion that you cannot do JSON processing at all
22:40:27 <dmitriz> ... that the WG was anti-JSON, which led to a whole lot of confusion
22:40:34 <Kristina> q+
22:40:47 <dmitriz> ... I don't think moving this stuff to Implementer Guide, or elsewhere, will help, because people want to know specifically how they can operate
22:40:50 <dmitriz> ... so it should be explicit
22:41:18 <dmitriz> ... we /do/ talk about JSON-only processing in the JSON-LD 1.1 spec, but pointing to a section in the giant spec that somebody has to extract, won't really hep
22:41:25 <dmitriz> s/really hep/really help/
22:41:39 <dmitriz> manu: the biggest issue is to clarify - how JSON only docs are processed
22:41:45 <brent> ack Kristina
22:42:12 <dmitriz> Kristina: I don't think anyone should read another giant spec to understand what to do for JSON processing for the VC Data Model. on the other hand, these couple of paragraphs feel like they're a tip of the iceberg too
22:42:20 <dmitriz> ... maybe we should elaborate on the bullet points above this section
22:42:32 <brent> q+
22:42:39 <dmitriz> ... I think just saying, under the bullet points, "for details, go see here in the Impl Guide", would be a good compromise
22:42:52 <brent> ack brent
22:43:10 <dmitriz> brent: manu, you said this PR was raised to address the confusion folks had, that now the spec couldn't be processed as JSON
22:43:25 <manu> q+
22:43:35 <Kristina> q+
22:43:40 <dmitriz> ... would it be sufficient to address that confusion, to just add a brief note, "Just a reminder, JSON-LD can be processed as JSON, many use cases we're aware of do this, for details, see implementation guide"
22:43:41 <brent> ack manu
22:43:54 <dmitriz> manu: that's not what Alan and Mattheas were asking for; they said it needs to be stated in the core spec
22:44:08 <dmitriz> ... I think moving it to the guide would not address their concerns
22:44:18 <Kristina> q-
22:44:20 <dmitriz> ... others in the group, please chime in. But we should check in with Alan and Mattheas
22:44:38 <Kristina> q+
22:44:41 <dmitriz> ... it's clear that this is something that has confused people for a long time. I don't think the way to clarify is to talk about it for a sentence and then point elsewhere
22:44:48 <dmitriz> ... we can just very clearly say "this is what you do"
22:45:01 <dmitriz> ... as far as tip of the iceberg -- I don't know what more we can write. There's just one simple rule
22:45:05 <brent> ack Kristina
22:45:06 <dmitriz> ... not sure how much more we can elaborate
22:45:15 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say clearer is better, nothing is worse
22:45:43 <manu> +1, thank you Kristina -- if we can add text, taht would be good -- deleting text makes me concerned.
22:45:50 <dmitriz> Kristina: let's take it offline, and let's ask Alan and folks re implementer guide
22:45:52 <manu> q+
22:45:55 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
22:45:55 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say clearer is better, nothing is worse
22:46:13 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: this sounds good. i wanted to say - we do need to make it clearer / simpler. But I think moving it to implementation guide would be a mistake.
22:46:16 <brent> ack manu
22:46:17 <shigeya> +1, clear and simpler, easy to understand
22:46:20 <dmitriz> ... but I look forward to seeing what Kristina comes up with
22:46:36 <dmitriz> manu: +1 Kristina, if we can add text to address your concerns, and still keep it simple and clear, I'd much rather prefer that
22:46:41 <dmitriz> ... we've had enough people get confused
22:46:54 <dmitriz> ... so +1 if you can propose additions/clarifications, happy to process those
22:46:59 <dmitriz> brent: thank you all, moving on to another PR
22:47:18 <dmitriz> brent: I believe the path forward for this one is - Kristina is going to propose adding a sentence
22:47:26 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1172
22:47:27 <dmitriz> ... next one to look at, 1172
22:47:46 <dmitriz> ... this is a PR that modifies terminology, it adds the notion of an Author to the definitions for the Issuer and Holder
22:47:52 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention subject and author
22:47:54 <dmitriz> ... ultimately in a way that I agree adds some clarity
22:48:08 <dmitriz> ... the latest comments from Orie, I'm not sure what change is being requested specifically
22:48:12 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
22:48:12 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention subject and author
22:48:21 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: yeah, I just added a few comments
22:48:40 <dmitriz> ... two things worth noting. 1) there's an important shift that we should talk about - the definition of 'subject' got shifted so that it is an entity
22:48:53 <dmitriz> ... before, we've had VCs with a subject that was anything at all
22:49:13 <dmitriz> ... my main comment about 'author' -- authorship does not semantically describe what's happening here, as it's associated with original creation
22:49:22 <dmitriz> ... it doesn't matter if I created the words, it matters that I attested to their truth
22:49:38 <dmitriz> brent: this is not a 'Before CR' PR, so I'm not super worried about it on this call. moving forward..
22:49:46 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1203
22:49:48 <dmitriz> brent: for the record, I agree with your concern about subject being an entity
22:49:58 <dmitriz> ... moving on to 1203, Add Section on Ecosystem Compat
22:50:16 <JoeAndrieu> q+
22:50:19 <dmitriz> ... massive number of approvals, all the change requests have been addressed. If noone objects, we'll merge it as soon as Ivan's notes-taking tool adds the notes to it
22:50:22 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
22:50:30 <dmitriz> JoeAndrieu: I just want to say 'no objection'
22:50:35 <manu> yes, it has no objections AFAIK.
22:50:38 <dmitriz> brent: anyone else?
22:50:52 <manu> Thank you to everyone for working together to try to get this PR in there! :)
22:51:00 <dmitriz> ... ok, seems like it's widely approved, we'll merge it
22:51:08 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1218
22:51:16 <dmitriz> ... moving on, next one, 1218 - this is the PR Gabe mentioned earlier
22:51:34 <dmitriz> ... raised by Ivan, adding things to the vocab -- what needs to change to make it compatible with the direction we're taking in the previous one?
22:51:35 <manu> q+
22:51:36 <dmitriz> ... or.. how are they related?
22:51:42 <brent> ack manu
22:51:50 <dmitriz> manu: Ivan is doing a PR to create the vocabulary terms that Gabe needs for his other PR
22:52:01 <dmitriz> ... so, things do need to change - Ivan needs to take the dates off of this, but, that's it
22:52:13 <dmitriz> brent: ok, and it looks like Gabe has already added a suggestion to do exactly that
22:52:26 <dmitriz> ... so this one is in the same state as the other PR, once dates get cleaned up, we'll merge it
22:52:43 <dmitriz> ... we have talked about every PR, and now are looping around!
22:52:58 <dmitriz> ... so let's act on those things, get as many of the PRs merged as we can
22:53:12 <dmitriz> ... those specifically tasked, please do those things, if you don't recall, the notes from the meeting will go to those PRs
22:53:18 <dmitriz> ... we don't have time to jump into issues, sadly
22:53:22 <manu> Thanks all!
22:53:24 <dmitriz> ... thanks everyone, very productive call!
22:53:37 <dmitriz> seabass: question, when Ivan adds those comments from the meeting, is that automatic, or is he copying & pasting?
22:53:50 <dmitriz> brent: it's automatic, there's a tool that goes off of 'subtopic:' tags
22:54:14 <dmitriz> brent: thanks all, see you on tomorrow's main call!
22:54:34 <brent> zakim, who is here?
22:54:34 <Zakim> Present: brent, seabass, dmitriz, hsano, decentralgabe, Kristina, JoeAndrieu, selfissued, manu, andres
22:54:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see Kristina, hsano, identitywoman, andres, selfissued, JoeAndrieu, dmitriz, TallTed, RRSAgent, Zakim, brent, manu, csarven, seabass, dlehn, shigeya, stenr, dlongley
22:54:37 <TallTed> present+
22:54:56 <brent> present+ TallTed
22:55:21 <brent> zakim, end the meeting
22:55:21 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been brent, seabass, dmitriz, hsano, decentralgabe, Kristina, JoeAndrieu, selfissued, manu, andres, TallTed
22:55:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:55:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/08/01-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim
22:55:31 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
22:55:31 <brent> rrsagent, bye
22:55:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
22:55:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg-special