14:36:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:36:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/05/15-vcwg-irc
14:36:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:36:20 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:36:25 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:36:25 <ivan> Date: 2024-05-15
14:36:25 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c7f5c66-5e34-468a-837e-2c2bf12de748/20240515T110000/
14:36:25 <ivan> chair: brent
14:36:26 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2024-05-15: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c7f5c66-5e34-468a-837e-2c2bf12de748/20240515T110000/
14:58:08 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
14:58:27 <brent> brent has joined #vcwg
14:59:41 <hsano> present+
14:59:45 <ivan> present+
14:59:55 <ivan> present+ shani, brent
15:00:58 <ivan> present- shani
15:01:18 <ivan> present+ hsano
15:01:36 <ivan> present+ manu
15:01:37 <PL-ASU> PL-ASU has joined #vcwg
15:01:47 <PL-ASU> present+
15:01:49 <ivan> present+ gregg
15:01:51 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:02:20 <dlongley> present+
15:02:26 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
15:02:33 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:02:46 <ivan> present+ joe
15:03:01 <GregB> GregB has joined #vcwg
15:03:18 <GregB> present+
15:03:21 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:03:54 <ivan> present+ selfissued
15:04:42 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
15:04:50 <selfissued> present+
15:04:54 <selfissued> scribe+
15:06:06 <JoeAndrieu> present+
15:06:13 <ivan> present+ gabe
15:06:17 <manu> q+ jandrieu
15:06:21 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about github for vc-overview
15:06:33 <manu> q- jandrieu
15:07:13 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:07:13 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about github for vc-overview
15:07:19 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:07:48 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:07:52 <brent> Topic: VC Overview Note
15:07:52 <selfissued> The VC Overview is currently Ivan's personal document
15:08:02 <brent> https://iherman.github.io/vc-overview/
15:08:23 <GregB> +1
15:08:37 <manu> +1 to it being "pretty fantastic"
15:08:55 <manu> q+
15:08:58 <ivan> present+ will
15:08:59 <brent> ack manu
15:09:05 <selfissued> Brent suggests that we adopt this and turn it into a note
15:09:12 <Will> Will has joined #vcwg
15:09:15 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say this is awesome, but lifecycle diagram needs updating
15:09:28 <selfissued> manu: We've needed something like this for a while
15:09:35 <selfissued> +1 to publish it as a note
15:09:45 <PL-ASU> +1 to this piece of work by Ivan and adopting it as work item and getting into Note form.
15:09:48 <ivan> present+ jennie
15:10:06 <hsano> +1 to great work
15:10:09 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg
15:10:11 <ivan> q+
15:10:14 <decentralgabe> present+
15:10:14 <dlongley> +1 its great and +1 to publish as a NOTE
15:10:23 <dlongley> and +1 to the effort, Ivan!
15:10:27 <TallTed> +1 (and it fixes the lifecycle placement issues, too!)
15:10:32 <jenniem> jenniem has joined #vcwg
15:10:38 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:10:38 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say this is awesome, but lifecycle diagram needs updating
15:10:43 <TallTed> might be better titled "Overview & Primer" to encourage more readers
15:11:02 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: This is a pretty amazing document
15:11:21 <brent> ack ivan
15:11:38 <selfissued> brent: This is a better destination for this content than the Use Cases document
15:12:31 <TallTed> The revised lifecycle content that is now in Use Cases could simply replace this content, fixing those issues, I think
15:12:57 <selfissued> ivan: The goal of this document is to give an overview.
15:13:53 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
15:14:12 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
15:14:13 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed if you mean the one in PR https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/154 that is the same diagram
15:14:19 <selfissued> brent: I will change this to a note track item
15:14:23 <brent> PROPOSAL: Adopt https://iherman.github.io/vc-overview/ as a Note-track work item
15:14:25 <manu> +1
15:14:26 <dlongley> +1
15:14:27 <dmitriz> +1
15:14:28 <hsano> +1
15:14:28 <GregB> +1
15:14:29 <ivan> +1
15:14:29 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:14:29 <bigbluehat> +1
15:14:29 <PL-ASU> +1
15:14:30 <TallTed> +1
15:14:32 <Will> +1
15:14:52 <brent> RESOLVED: Adopt https://iherman.github.io/vc-overview/ as a Note-track work item
15:15:03 <ivan> present+ TallTed
15:15:16 <brent> Topic: Charter
15:15:34 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/114
15:15:51 <TallTed> JoeAndrieu -- ah, I had thought the diagram had been updated in the process of moving the lifecycle from the main spec to the UCR doc (which I thought had been completed?)...
15:16:20 <pauld_gs1> pauld_gs1 has joined #vcwg
15:16:32 <manu> q+
15:16:34 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: There were decisions in Miami due to timing
15:16:34 <decentralgabe> q+
15:16:35 <ivan> q+
15:16:43 <brent> ack manu
15:16:44 <selfissued> ... I want to have that discussion
15:17:12 <selfissued> manu: The ACDC decision was not just about timing
15:17:24 <selfissued> ... We were trying to not add more work to the group
15:18:19 <selfissued> ... As for the two-year timeframe and no new work items, the reasoning was sound
15:18:29 <selfissued> ... We can do another 6-month extension
15:18:44 <selfissued> ... Why don't we do things that don't put enormous time pressure on the WG
15:18:51 <decentralgabe> q-
15:18:56 <selfissued> ... We can do a two-year extension
15:19:10 <selfissued> ... We don't want to see what happened to the DID WG happen to the VC WG
15:19:22 <selfissued> ... Resulting in another round of formal objections
15:19:38 <selfissued> ... We're going to continue doing the work everyone agreed to do and finish it
15:19:44 <selfissued> ... We can recharter in 2025
15:20:02 <selfissued> ... Once we get done with our 11 work items, we can then think about rechartering
15:20:11 <dlongley> +1 to get existing work items done and then consider recharter on what to work on which will be a bigger discussion
15:20:30 <selfissued> ... We want to have that discussion in a way that enables broad feedback
15:20:37 <dlongley> (i.e., after current recharter which focuses on existing work items and just extending time)
15:20:49 <selfissued> ... The time to do that isn't now when we're a month away from charter expiration
15:20:58 <selfissued> ... We've made good progress
15:21:03 <brent> ack ivan
15:21:51 <selfissued> ivan: The experience with our own community is that creating a new charter is subject to long and tedious discussions
15:21:57 <selfissued> ... Creating a new charter is a long thing
15:22:18 <selfissued> ... Even in the best of times, this requires ~6 months discussion
15:22:28 <selfissued> ... We need to finish what we've started
15:22:33 <brent> and there's no reason those discussions can't happen anyway under the new charter
15:23:00 <dlongley> -1 to 1.5 years, let's take the time we need and not repeat a problem there
15:23:20 <selfissued> ... I don't see anything happening on a new charter until January
15:23:34 <manu> Plus, let's remember that we have active incubation in CCG, work can proceed there.
15:23:39 <dlongley> +1
15:24:20 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about Notes as deliverables
15:24:31 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:24:31 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about Notes as deliverables
15:25:25 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: We have a few things that are at risk
15:25:40 <selfissued> ... Confidence Method
15:25:54 <manu> q+
15:26:11 <selfissued> ivan: About two months ago there was a WG discussion
15:26:39 <selfissued> ... Does the WG want to make changes to published recommendation?
15:26:39 <selfissued> ... New features
15:27:04 <brent> ack manu
15:27:34 <selfissued> manu: It used to be possible to publish a note and convert it to a recommendation
15:27:43 <selfissued> ... That loophole has since been closed
15:28:06 <TallTed> I think it matters that this new Overview Work Item is not entirely new content, but rather collects content from other less-optimal places where we've already largely written it.
15:29:16 <selfissued> ... Confidence Method and Render Method is right up there
15:29:20 <selfissued> ... We're overloaded
15:29:40 <dlongley> +1 to getting existing work out the door and then look into recharter to add all of these great new things for the next phase
15:29:40 <selfissued> ... I would personally -1 to new work until we finish what we've started
15:30:02 <selfissued> ... People have the chance to work on anything else in parallel
15:30:09 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say if folks have things that they want included, we shouldn't preclude that possibility beyond this current charter. extending that into the new charter doesn't work.
15:30:11 <dlongley> (and a number of those things will benefit from more incubation in the time frame)
15:30:17 <TallTed> Also note that while REC-track-in-progress should not be "parked" as NOTE, REC-track-in-progress *can* be "parked" as DRAFTs
15:30:33 <selfissued> ... We could incubate these things in the CCG
15:30:52 <selfissued> ... That gives us a good argument to recharter with these things in scope
15:31:11 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:31:11 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say if folks have things that they want included, we shouldn't preclude that possibility beyond this current charter. extending that into the new charter
15:31:14 <Zakim> ... doesn't work.
15:31:39 <manu> q+
15:31:41 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: I think if we cannot include work that's currently noted as at risk, I will oppose rechartering
15:31:48 <ivan> q+
15:31:53 <brent> ack manu
15:32:02 <selfissued> ... We don't need two years to finish what we started
15:32:18 <selfissued> manu: They're not getting done because people aren't doing the work
15:32:42 <selfissued> ... I'm hesitant to recharter presuming things are going to change
15:33:08 <selfissued> ... The FedID group is a good example
15:33:24 <selfissued> ... At the last minute they wanted to add digital credentials
15:33:31 <selfissued> ... The work hasn't been incubated
15:33:44 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say rechartering is either hard or easy. it is the preclusion of finishing work already started by this group that's a problem.
15:33:49 <selfissued> ... Many of the extension points are in the category that we don't know how long they're going to take
15:34:26 <selfissued> ... We have to have an active charter to fix problems and publish updated specs
15:34:56 <selfissued> ... After we finish the 11 things, that's when to discuss new charter items
15:35:03 <selfissued> ... We have extension points
15:35:06 <dlongley> asking to recharter to add more work is an item that has to happen and get consent at some point no matter what -- clearly it will be easier to get that consent later than now (based on the comments here)
15:35:18 <selfissued> ... A working group isn't required to use the extension points
15:35:42 <selfissued> ivan: We have 1 month left in our charter
15:35:56 <selfissued> ... We have one shot at a 6 month extension
15:36:05 <selfissued> ... Or we can recharter for 2 years
15:36:08 <brent> ack ivan
15:36:10 <selfissued> ... Joe, what do you want?
15:36:28 <brent> ack JoeAndrieu
15:36:28 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say rechartering is either hard or easy. it is the preclusion of finishing work already started by this group that's a problem.
15:36:41 <selfissued> ... What is the chartering process you want at the W3C?
15:36:53 <manu> q+
15:36:55 <brent> q+
15:36:57 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: I want the charter change
15:37:24 <brent> q-
15:37:28 <selfissued> ... We're conflating finishing our work and our maintenance role, preventing new work from being done
15:37:54 <manu> q+ to say it's not that "rechartering is easy/hard" -- it's "easy if done in some way" vs. "hard if done another way"
15:37:55 <selfissued> ivan: At any time, we can decide what we want in a new charter and recharter
15:38:10 <brent> q+
15:38:27 <brent> ack manu
15:38:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say it's not that "rechartering is easy/hard" -- it's "easy if done in some way" vs. "hard if done another way"
15:38:45 <dlongley> any existing work items can reach draft form only?
15:38:54 <dlongley> (that aren't already in CR)
15:38:54 <selfissued> manu: I don't know what new text you want in the charter
15:39:02 <decentralgabe> q+
15:39:41 <selfissued> manu: We can do an administrative extension or a full extension
15:39:53 <selfissued> The AC has already agreed to the scope of our current charter
15:40:18 <selfissued> ... Once we add new things, there will likely be objections
15:40:18 <brent> q-
15:40:28 <brent> ack decentralgabe
15:40:45 <selfissued> decentralgabe: +1 to what Manu said
15:40:52 <selfissued> ... Let's take the easy option first
15:41:11 <JoeAndrieu> +1 is the six months "free" charter extension
15:41:12 <selfissued> ... Let's also have a path to do new work like Confidence Method in the future
15:41:32 <ivan> q+
15:41:38 <selfissued> brent: We're going to move on
15:42:12 <selfissued> ivan: I plan to submit the existing charter text to the AC
15:42:20 <selfissued> ... All the issues should be clearly closed
15:42:38 <selfissued> brent: If we proceed with this charter, do you plan to formally object?
15:43:06 <selfissued> JoeAndrieu: I want you to enable adding new items in this charter
15:43:11 <manu> q+
15:43:16 <selfissued> ... I can give you a list
15:43:22 <ivan> q-
15:43:26 <manu> q-
15:43:36 <ivan> q+
15:43:41 <selfissued> brent: We are going to stop talking about this
15:43:41 <manu> q+
15:43:55 <selfissued> ... Ivan, please request an administrative extension
15:44:42 <selfissued> ... If we can't come to an agreement, we'll be in an unknown state
15:44:50 <manu> q-
15:44:55 <ivan> q-
15:45:05 <brent> Topic: Work Item Status Updates/PRs
15:45:18 <selfissued> ... Let's focus on the work we are currently doing and get it done
15:45:25 <selfissued> ... Work item status and updates
15:45:39 <manu> q+
15:45:43 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list/pull/171
15:46:12 <brent> ack manu
15:47:10 <selfissued> manu: If we can merge this today, we can include it in the snapshot for publication
15:47:55 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-controller-document/issues
15:47:57 <manu> I will merge and integrate after this meeting.
15:48:12 <selfissued> brent: You have approval to merge this after this call
15:48:20 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-controller-document/issues/7
15:48:53 <manu> q+
15:49:12 <selfissued> q+
15:49:22 <brent> ack manu
15:49:29 <selfissued> manu: We've had this discussion before
15:49:40 <selfissued> ... That's why the conformance section is where it is
15:49:49 <ivan> q+
15:49:50 <selfissued> ... We can move it to a top-level section
15:50:06 <selfissued> ... I'm -1 to moving it later in the spec
15:50:16 <selfissued> ... We do refer to it early in the specification
15:50:59 <PL-ASU> Scribe
15:51:04 <brent> ack selfissued
15:51:12 <ivan> scribe+ PL-ASU
15:51:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:51:57 <brent> ack ivan
15:52:01 <PL-ASU> Selfissued: as Manu said the things to conform to need reference at the front of the document. Should have statements of conformance before you are conforming to it.
15:52:17 <selfissued> ivan: My real concern is consistency
15:52:28 <selfissued> ... We have a family of recommendations
15:52:32 <selfissued> q+
15:52:33 <manu> q+ to note we introduce topics
15:52:47 <selfissued> ... I didn't realize that jose-cose was inconsistent
15:52:48 <brent> ack selfissued
15:52:53 <PL-ASU> Scribe+
15:53:00 <brent> ack manu
15:53:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note we introduce topics
15:53:10 <PL-ASU> Selfissued: it's not that it's inconsistent.
15:53:37 <selfissued> manu: I think it's fine to define a concept and then elaborate on it later on
15:54:41 <brent> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-controller-document/issues/8
15:54:59 <selfissued> q+
15:55:05 <brent> ack selfissued
15:55:30 <manu> q+
15:55:40 <PL-ASU> scribe+  selfissued: because there are times mentioned in the document that doesn't mean that there is an accessibility consideration
15:55:47 <brent> ack manu
15:56:17 <selfissued> q+
15:57:02 <brent> ack selfissued
15:57:40 <PL-ASU> Selfissued: This spec doesn't display them. We should cut it down to what is needed.  If there are new UI considerations we shouldn't introduce this an accessibility issue
15:57:56 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/05/15-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
15:59:10 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
15:59:10 <RRSAgent> I see no action items