Meeting minutes
DID Method Working Group Charter
Markus: first topic is the charter, there is a PR there we would like to review: w3c/
The PR clarifies what items are out of scope, the PR proposes some updates on the language to better clarify that items that are out of scope are methods that do not follow the web architecture principles
Markus: we can still update the charter, the PR discussion also has another relevant topic which is if the did method wg should be just one group for all did methods or if there should be separate working groups (one for each did method). This was raised by Joe Andrieu.
Manu: we are opposed to splitting the work into several groups, because this would affect the momentum
Jonathan Rayback: My question is what does it mean if we have a forma objection as is being suggested?
Pierre Antoine: If there is no objection and we get votes from at least 5% of the membership then we have a way forward.... however if there is a formal objection then the W3C council will need to review the objection and decide if it can override it or not.
Jonathan Rayback: Yes I think then we need to analyze what we shall do...
Markus: Yes I am not sure I understand the rationale for the objection either....
Markus: perhaps we can have some ways to compensate for this by having some dedicated sessions for specific did methods or facilitate the logistics, I could propose this to Joe A.
Pierre Antoine: Yes. Also some people if the Advisory Committee will find it out to have various charters dedicated to the same thing, and this would also be challenging from a staffing point. Perhaps we can serialize the work, such that we work on one did method at a time. But not sure if this will solve the concern from Joe.
Manu: Yes I could see some benefit in that, however sometimes things take a few weeks and months to figure out; so forcing the agenda may not be a great idea....
Manu: I also see the cross-polination between the did methods as part of the benefit of having a single wg
Manu: I think we should just leave this to the wg and not pre-architect some kind of set agenda...
Jonathan Rayback: Yes it's difficult. I think we should just arrive at a conclusion, perhaps we just decide to move forward with the one wg...
Manu: Yes, what is the group sentiment here? Does anyone else object if we have the single wg?
Manu: We should also hear group sentiment regarding the blockchain did methods that we are leaving out of scope....
Smmcown: Yes I think we should not split the energy of the community in various different wgs....
Smmcown: Also concerned by the rejection from some W3C members of blockchain tech.
Jonathan Rayback: Yes, also we should discuss the blockchain did methods... but moving forward with the PR... can we decide on merging this PR?
There seems to be group consensus that we move forward from the PR....
There is also strong agreement that we have the single working group...
Markus: Yes I agree with the PR.
Kim Duffy: Is Joe A. not able to make it today?
Manu: Yes unfortunately he is double booked for this meeting.
Manu: On the language of the PR, yes I agree with the new wording....
Manu: I think we might see objections during publication if there any did blockchain methods included. We might instead try to have some success first by having some did methods standardized and making some progress there.
Markus: My question about web architecture and web principles, could this be interpreted in a narrow way where only web servers or http protocol are allowed? But I think Antoine has already clarified that these are generic principles, and that they should not be interpreted in that way.
Conclusion: We all agree to keep one WG with multiple did methods. And also that there is support for the language in the PR to use the web architecture and web principles.
m2gbot, link issues with transcript
<m2gbot> issue w3c/