15:27:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:28:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-vcwg-irc
15:28:02 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:28:03 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:28:14 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:28:14 <ivan> Date: 2025-01-15
15:28:14 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d03d7ee5-c761-4c67-825e-b483138033c7/20250115T110000/
15:28:14 <ivan> chair: brent
15:28:15 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-01-15: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/d03d7ee5-c761-4c67-825e-b483138033c7/20250115T110000/
15:59:00 <ivan> present+
15:59:25 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
15:59:48 <ivan> present+ brentz
16:00:16 <mandyv> mandyv has joined #vcwg
16:00:31 <hsano> present+
16:01:09 <dlongley> present+
16:01:38 <mandyv> present+
16:01:39 <ivan> present+ mandyv
16:01:55 <ivan> present+ wesley
16:02:02 <ivan> present+ manu
16:03:10 <durkinza> durkinza has joined #vcwg
16:03:40 <ivan> present+ will, kevin
16:04:26 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
16:04:29 <Wip> present+
16:04:38 <ivan> present+ selfissued
16:04:53 <Wip> scribe+
16:04:53 <ivan> present+ davidc
16:04:55 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg
16:05:36 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
16:05:37 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:05:41 <ivan> q+
16:05:41 <Wip> brentz: Agenda today is, open PRs and at risk features for the data model, cids, status list and data integrity
16:05:52 <Wip> ... any changes or additions?
16:05:52 <Przemek> Przemek has joined #vcwg
16:05:53 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
16:05:54 <brentz> ack ivan
16:05:57 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:05:59 <KevinDean> present+
16:06:05 <DavidC> present+
16:06:30 <Przemek> present+
16:06:38 <Wip> ivan: The cr submission for the CID spec has started its official journey. The first opportunity for feedback is on friday
16:07:05 <brentz> Topic: VCDM - PRs and at-risk features
16:07:15 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
16:07:19 <selfissued> present+
16:07:41 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1581
16:07:43 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:07:45 <manu> q+
16:07:47 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:07:50 <JennieM> present+
16:08:05 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:08:09 <Wip> brentz: This is about fixing the JSON schema of the verifiable credential. Does what is described. Makes minor changes to the JSON schema
16:08:14 <manu> q-
16:08:23 <Wip> ... has three approvals. No objections. Should be uncontroversial
16:08:29 <Wip> ... Please review
16:08:46 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1580
16:08:46 <manu> q+
16:08:59 <manu> q-
16:09:04 <Wip> brentz: This rewords the self asserted VP test to remove the MUST. The test suite determined that this statement was untestable
16:09:22 <manu> q+
16:09:27 <Wip> ... This is a normative change that fixes a bug. Has lots of approval, expect it to be merged after review time passed
16:09:29 <brentz> ack manu
16:10:09 <Wip> manu: process question for ivan, this has been determined unimplementable even though it is normative. Is this change going to be okay
16:10:13 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:10:15 <Wip> ivan: yep should be fine
16:10:35 <bigbluehat> present+
16:10:38 <Wip> ivan: I don't think the normative label on the PR is justified. It isnt changing a feature it makes things more precicse
16:10:44 <Wip> manu: I can change to editorial
16:10:50 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1579
16:11:38 <Wip> brentz: This PR updates the authors and editors list based on how folks have contributed the the spec
16:12:04 <ivan> q+
16:12:06 <manu> q+
16:12:07 <selfissued> q+
16:12:12 <Wip> ... other than minor fixes from TallTed, the PR is straightforward. please get reviews in
16:12:13 <brentz> ack ivan
16:12:36 <Wip> ivan: Never know what the right thing to do for former editors and authors and their affiliations
16:12:40 <Wip> ... What is the right direction
16:12:55 <Wip> brentz: For former editors, it makes sense to me to keep affiliation when they were editors
16:13:03 <brentz> ack manu
16:13:16 <Wip> manu: I agree with that
16:14:00 <Wip> ... For VCDM I was on the fence around the authors. There are people who have contributed a lot to the conversation and we acknowledge that. But wondering if they should be authors
16:14:15 <Wip> ... What about where content has been removed
16:14:46 <brentz> q+ to respond
16:14:51 <Wip> ... Would appreciate  the thoughts of the group on this
16:14:54 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:15:26 <brentz> ack brentz
16:15:26 <Zakim> brentz, you wanted to respond
16:15:29 <Wip> selfissued: I am surprised to see a proposal to remove myself as an editor. I am going to make a change request to the current PR to add me back in
16:16:04 <Wip> brentz: Chair hat off, the habit of maintaining a list of former authors and editors to the spec isnt something I think we need to do. I don't mind if my name goes
16:16:08 <manu> q+
16:16:14 <brentz> ack manu
16:16:52 <Wip> manu: On selfissued taking offence to the suggested changes. We try to make this data driven. selfissued did not contribute as much as others on the basis of the data
16:17:23 <Wip> ... You are given acknowledgments in that section
16:17:44 <Wip> ... I think this should be a data driven effort, to reward those who have submitted PRs and engaged in the commentary etc
16:18:25 <manu> q+ to say one last thing and then I think we can move on.
16:18:30 <Wip> selfissued: I understand desire to be data driven. But this doesn't include in the important ways that people contribute. Including attending calls and TPAC to contribute to the discussion etc.
16:18:44 <Phil-ASU> Phil-ASU has joined #vcwg
16:18:56 <DavidC> q+
16:18:58 <Wip> ... I feel I have behaved as an editor making contributions, that are not always in github. This is the false narrative. Github contributions are not the only way to contribute to the spec
16:19:01 <Phil-ASU> present+
16:19:26 <selfissued> q+
16:19:53 <Wip> manu: one last thing. The job of an editor is to edit. To raise PRs. To modify the document. To make changes to the document. The other types of contributions are valid, they are made as working group participants.
16:19:59 <Wip> ... Acknowledgements are made
16:20:46 <Wip> ... I strongly disagree with the idea that if an editor just shows up to calls, while not contributing to the document, then they should not be an editor. These things are earned.
16:21:33 <Wip> selfissued: I want an apology.
16:21:50 <Wip> brentz: not going to come to a conclusion on this call. lets have a conversation privately with selfissued and manu
16:21:58 <Wip> manu: I would like this to be a public discussion
16:22:06 <dlongley> q+
16:24:12 <brentz> ack manu
16:24:12 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say one last thing and then I think we can move on.
16:24:14 <Wip> brentz: spending 5 more minutes on this
16:24:18 <brentz> ack DavidC
16:24:50 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:24:52 <Wip> DavidC: In my own case, not objecting to being listed an author. But the count of PRs for myself is less than it could have been as manu did some of my PRs
16:24:57 <Wip> dlongley
16:24:57 <brentz> ack dlongley
16:25:11 <selfissued> q+
16:25:36 <Wip> dlongley: Just want to make the point that the group agreed to follow this data driven process to decide whose name would be on the spec as authors and editors. I think it is unfair to put the burden of that onto manu
16:25:42 <Wip> ... He is just executing what the group wants
16:25:59 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:26:00 <Wip> ... We are talking about names in the editor section of the spec, this is about editing
16:26:06 <Wip> brentz: that matches my recollection
16:26:19 <Wip> selfissued: That does not match my recollection to sign up to be an editor
16:26:21 <brentz> q+
16:26:48 <Wip> ... I have been doing some of this largely on my own time. I consider myself a consistent intellectual leader in this spec
16:26:58 <Wip> ... This doesnt always result in PRs
16:27:19 <brentz> ack brentz
16:27:23 <Wip> ... Feel this is unfair to have assumed to be an editor for all this time, then as we are approaching the finish line to change this
16:27:45 <manu> q+
16:27:51 <brentz> ack manu
16:27:51 <Wip> brentz: making a suggestion. manu, selfissued and gabe regularly attended the editor call for an hour each week. Has this time commitment been taken into account
16:28:03 <Wip> manu: No, it hasn't been taken into account
16:28:08 <selfissued> q+
16:28:10 <ivan> q+
16:28:43 <Wip> brentz: wondeirng if we can account for this time. The editor call is work
16:29:04 <Wip> manu: I don't have an opiniob on this, the group needs to figure this out
16:29:10 <smccown> smccown has joined #vcwg
16:29:12 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:29:18 <smccown> present+
16:29:23 <ivan> present+ Phil, TallTed
16:29:49 <Wip> selfissued: thanks for raising that point brent. I agree it was a substantial time commitment to be on the editor calls. I engaged in these calls
16:30:12 <Wip> ... Maybe the resolution to this is to put the working group on record that those who participate in the group should be listed as editors
16:30:20 <bigbluehat> q+
16:30:20 <dlongley> q+
16:30:27 <brentz> ack ivan
16:30:44 <selfissued> q+
16:30:55 <Wip> ivan: for the last issue it is more complicated. There are many documents that we are editing. The editors call covers all of them, this discussion is just the VCDM
16:31:07 <Wip> ... In this case selfissued is already issued for other documents produced by this group
16:31:08 <dlongley> q-
16:31:12 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to support that editors gotta edit
16:31:21 <manu> q+ to answer the "Author" justification.
16:31:25 <dlongley> +1 to run a poll on whether joining editor calls is sufficient to be on the editor list for a specification
16:31:25 <Wip> ... Whats the judgement on the rule around adding authors
16:31:45 <brentz> ack bigbluehat
16:31:45 <Wip> ... For my understanding selfissued could perhaps be listed as an author
16:32:02 <dlongley> +1 that intellectual contributions to the specification and not direct typing into the spec sounds more like authorship than editing.
16:32:23 <Wip> bigbluehat: This is just for the VCDM. The editors call is general. selfissued is still and editor on other documents where his editorial contributions have been recognised.
16:33:17 <dlongley> +1 to bigbluehat that the "edits" were made in other specs and the editorship reflects that
16:33:19 <Wip> ... I don't see this as a personal affront. Just edits where not made to the VCDM, so in that sense selfissued would not be listed as an editor but still be acknowledged
16:33:21 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:33:48 <DavidC> q+
16:33:51 <Wip> selfissued: yes, editors call was a union of editors of all the specs. I went to that assuming that those listed as editors would remain so
16:34:02 <Wip> ... My time is not free, yet I gave my time to work on the VCDM spec
16:34:20 <brentz> ack JoeAndrieu
16:34:20 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to support that editors gotta edit
16:34:33 <Wip> ... willing to clarify resolution to say that editors that participated in calls will remain listed as editor to those specs
16:34:43 <dlongley> +1 to Joe -- much time and money have been spent by many individuals and companies.
16:34:44 <Phil-ASU> q+
16:35:15 <Wip> JoeAndrieu: I dont find the arguments that those who commited personal time and wealth should be an editor or author. An editor in my opinion should be editing. They should be actually making edits to the spec.
16:35:24 <brentz> ack manu
16:35:24 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to answer the "Author" justification.
16:35:57 <Wip> manu: Answering around what makes an author. Historically it has been significant contributions to the specifications that resulted in new sections to the document
16:36:11 <Wip> ... e.g. brentz and his contributions around the ZKP section
16:36:35 <Wip> ... significant intellectual contributions to the specification, e.g. foundational concepts integrated into the specifcation
16:37:01 <Phil-ASU> q-
16:37:10 <Wip> ... Another example is DavidC in the 1.0 spec added a section about subject vs holder
16:37:33 <Wip> ... as for everyone getting credit. Please look at the PR, everyone who contributed to the spec is getting acknowledgements
16:38:05 <brentz> ack DavidC
16:38:23 <Wip> DavidC: question to manu, in the PRs on the commits person A raises the PR. Person B makes a lot of comments. Who gets the credit?
16:38:50 <Wip> manu: No person B gets the credit. When person B makes a change suggestion, we make separate commits that make them get the credit for it
16:39:11 <Wip> ... That is how TallTed ended up at the top of the list, he regularly provides suggestions to text
16:39:49 <Wip> ... again linecount does not mean everything. But we also take into account comments etc. To get a good sense of contributions to the spec
16:40:27 <TallTed> q+ about proposal wording
16:40:36 <TallTed> q+ to ask about proposal wording
16:41:07 <brentz> Proposal: those listed as editors on the specifications who attended the weekly editors call will be listed as editors
16:41:12 <selfissued> +1
16:41:16 <dlongley> -1 (attending a weekly editor call is insufficient to be listed as an editor, significantly more work is required to actually edit the documents themselves for them to become specs, which is the job of an editor)
16:41:29 <JoeAndrieu> -1 for documents they didn't edit
16:41:42 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask which documents
16:41:46 <brentz> Proposal: those previously listed as editors on the specifications who attended the weekly editors call will be listed as editors
16:42:09 <bigbluehat> q-
16:42:15 <brentz> Proposal: those already listed as editors on the specifications who attended the weekly editors call will continue to be listed as editors
16:42:31 <manu> -1 if they didn't do measurable changes/edits to the documents the were editor's for.
16:42:31 <selfissued> +1
16:42:35 <DavidC> 0
16:42:37 <brentz> +1
16:42:38 <bigbluehat> -1 editing should result in edits
16:42:38 <JoeAndrieu> -1
16:42:42 <Wip> -1
16:42:45 <ivan> 0
16:42:47 <dlongley> -1 (attending a weekly editor call is insufficient to be listed as an editor, significantly more work is required to actually edit the documents themselves for them to become specs, which is the job of an editor; if they did this then no issue)
16:42:55 <smccown> 0
16:43:05 <hsano> 0
16:43:10 <JennieM> -1
16:43:30 <Phil-ASU> -1
16:43:44 <Wip> brentz: not leading to resolution
16:43:49 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1566
16:43:52 <Wip> ... spending the remaining time looking at the other prs
16:43:53 <manu> q+
16:43:57 <TallTed> q-
16:44:12 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:44:16 <brentz> ack manu
16:44:18 <Wip> brentz: This PR update refreshService
16:44:30 <Wip> manu: this was initially to address using real examples in the specification
16:44:39 <Wip> ... This was done mostly accept for refreshService
16:44:48 <Wip> ... We dont have a v2.0 example
16:45:01 <Wip> ... I think there is pushback to using an 2.0 example
16:45:25 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1560
16:45:37 <manu> q+
16:45:38 <Wip> brentz: this PR is about making the abstract abstract
16:45:44 <brentz> ack manu
16:46:03 <Wip> manu: TallTed I think you objected because the content matched the introduction.
16:46:21 <Wip> ... I think I objected to your proposed text because it was too wordy. It would be good to make an attempt at it.
16:46:31 <TallTed> q+
16:46:34 <Wip> ... I think the current PR is not going to go it. I marked it pending close
16:46:35 <brentz> ack TallTed
16:46:56 <Wip> TallTed: As I put on the PR. The abstract that chatgpt helped me make is an abstract of the entire document
16:47:08 <Wip> ... The current abstract is introductory. And is not an abstract
16:47:21 <Wip> ... I don't see value having the current paragraph as an abstract
16:47:31 <manu> q+
16:47:31 <Wip> ... I suggest dropping it an not having an abstract
16:47:34 <ivan> q+
16:47:54 <brentz> ack manu
16:48:02 <Wip> brentz: One path would be to modify it to remove the paragraph. The other path would be to make it more concise
16:48:13 <Wip> manu: I dont think it improves the document in its current shape
16:48:29 <Wip> ... I dont think we can delete the abstract, because respec complains
16:48:44 <Wip> ... I would be fine with keeping the abstract and reworking the introduction spec
16:49:00 <Wip> ... Typically the W3C abstracts dont follow the academic abstract pattern
16:49:20 <Wip> ... They aim to give folks a paragraph concise understanding of the spec
16:49:32 <Wip> ... Suggest we try to keep reworking it until it is acceptable
16:49:53 <brentz> ack ivan
16:49:53 <Wip> manu: I will make another attempt
16:50:06 <Wip> ivan: dropping the abstract is not an option due to the publishing rules
16:50:34 <Wip> brentz: Those are the PRs in the VCDM
16:50:38 <ivan> q+
16:50:41 <Wip> ... manu do you have the set of at risk sections
16:50:51 <ivan> q-
16:50:58 <bigbluehat> q+
16:51:00 <Wip> manu: bigbluehat might have those, I dont think we have any more
16:51:07 <Wip> bigbluehat: Yep, not in the VCDM
16:51:16 <Wip> ... bitstring has a few things
16:51:26 <brentz> ack bigbluehat
16:51:36 <brentz> https://github.com/w3c/controller-document/pulls
16:51:38 <Wip> brentz: moving to controlled identifiers
16:51:46 <brentz> Topic: Controlled Identifiers
16:52:00 <brentz> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/cid/pull/144
16:52:33 <Wip> brentz: This pr attempts to adjust the title of the document, to call is controlled identifiers and drop the document following the DID spec
16:52:47 <Wip> ... At the time everyone was happy with this
16:53:00 <Wip> ... selfissued who wasnt on the call has since raised an objection
16:53:07 <ivan> q+
16:53:08 <manu> q+
16:53:09 <selfissued> q+
16:53:12 <brentz> ack ivan
16:53:49 <dlongley> +1 to Ivan
16:53:53 <brentz> ack manu
16:54:04 <Wip> ivan: I think selfissued is right, we should have passed a resolution. However this is a minor change. I would prefer to make the change
16:54:18 <Wip> manu: I agree with ivan, lets run a resolution for this change
16:54:23 <brentz> ack selfissued
16:54:42 <DavidC> +1
16:54:49 <Wip> selfissued: We argued over this already. We eventually got to something with consensus and made that change
16:54:58 <Wip> ... Then at the last minute we are changing our minds again
16:55:25 <brentz> q+
16:55:26 <Wip> ... furthermore, linguistically controlled identifier document is not suprisingly different from controller document
16:55:41 <Wip> ... wheras controlled identifiers and controller document are not that closely linked
16:55:57 <Wip> ... people in the community know the work as controller document
16:56:01 <DavidC> q+
16:56:02 <brentz> ack brentz
16:56:07 <Wip> ... not in favor of changing our mind in the last minute
16:56:22 <Wip> brentz: First, apologies for not running a proposal last week. We should have
16:56:32 <Wip> ... While I see the sense in unifying CIDs with DIDs
16:56:54 <Wip> ... I also see that maybe controlled identifier documents is talking about the format of the document that is returned when you acces a controlled identifier
16:57:06 <Wip> ... I do not have a strong opinion either way
16:57:15 <Wip> ... Will run the proposal from dlongley
16:57:16 <brentz> ack DavidC
16:57:38 <brentz> PROPOSAL: Make the title in the controlled identifiers document specification "Controlled Identifiers (CIDs) v1.0"
16:57:42 <brentz> 0
16:57:42 <manu> +1
16:57:42 <dlongley> +1
16:57:42 <Wip> DavidC: just to say that everything we produce is a spefication and a document. We could add document to all our specs
16:57:42 <ivan> +1
16:57:44 <selfissued> -1
16:57:45 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:57:46 <smccown> +1
16:57:47 <DavidC> +1
16:57:49 <JennieM> +1
16:57:49 <Wip> +1
16:57:50 <bigbluehat> +1
16:57:52 <TallTed> +1
16:57:57 <hsano> +1
16:58:02 <Phil-ASU> +1
16:58:38 <Wip> brentz: selfissued noting you are the only one objecting, would you formally object if this was resolved over your objections
16:58:53 <Wip> selfissued: no I would not, however belive this is a bad idea and was rushed at the last minute
16:58:56 <ivan> q+
16:59:07 <brentz> RESOLVED: Make the title in the controlled identifiers document specification "Controlled Identifiers (CIDs) v1.0"
16:59:12 <brentz> ack ivan
16:59:35 <Wip> ivan: Don't know when the PR went in, if the one week is not over then I would ask for this to be merged as quickly as possible
17:00:06 <Wip> brentz: chair hat on, the informal decision last week with a review period plus the resolution today means we can merge the PR today
17:00:08 <manu> agree with brentz's justification on merge window.
17:00:34 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/15-vcwg-minutes.html ivan
19:31:41 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg