15:10:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
15:10:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/12/10-vcwg-irc
15:10:44 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:10:45 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:11:17 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
15:11:17 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/21809461-ceae-40a9-9393-b528e4d78c9c/20251210T110000/
15:11:17 <ivan> chair: phila
15:11:17 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2025-12-10: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/21809461-ceae-40a9-9393-b528e4d78c9c/20251210T110000/
15:11:28 <ivan> regrets+ brentz
15:57:41 <phila> phila has joined #vcwg
15:59:30 <ivan> everything has been set up, phila
15:59:58 <ivan> s/everything has been set up, phila//
16:00:34 <ivan> present+
16:00:39 <ivan> present+ phila
16:01:22 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
16:02:14 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
16:02:18 <KevinDean> present+
16:02:24 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:02:34 <ivan> present+ TallTed
16:03:24 <Phil-ASU> Phil-ASU has joined #vcwg
16:03:33 <Phil-ASU> present+
16:03:33 <ivan> present+ Phil-ASU
16:04:08 <manu> present+
16:04:23 <ivan> present+ hiroyuki
16:04:25 <phila> Topic: scribe
16:04:26 <TallTed> present+
16:04:27 <phila> Scribe assignment. Recent scribes (most recent first) Pierre-Antoine, PhilA, DaveL, Kevin Dean
16:04:52 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
16:05:16 <ivan> present+ manu
16:05:38 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
16:05:43 <hsano> present+
16:05:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/10-vcwg-minutes.html TallTed
16:06:29 <KevinDean> scribe+
16:06:46 <phila> zakim next agendum
16:06:50 <phila> zakim, next agendum
16:06:50 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:07:04 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/21809461-ceae-40a9-9393-b528e4d78c9c/20251210T110000/
16:07:10 <TallTed> oh but no agendabot
16:07:15 <agendabot> agendabot has joined #vcwg
16:07:21 <TallTed> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/21809461-ceae-40a9-9393-b528e4d78c9c/20251210T110000/
16:07:21 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:07:21 <agendabot> agenda+ Scribe assignment. Recent scribes (most recent first) Pierre-Antoine, PhilA, DaveL, Kevin Dean
16:07:21 <agendabot> agenda+ Recap the discussion from TPAC and outline the plans for further developing the -> new charter https://github.com/iherman/vc-charter-2026/pull/9 .
16:07:22 <agendabot> agenda+ Updates on progress from the Render Method -> Issues https://github.com/w3c/vc-render-method/issues/ and Confidence Method -> Issues https://github.com/w3c/vc-confidence-method/issues/ task force meetings
16:07:25 <TallTed> Zakim, next item
16:07:27 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Scribe assignment. Recent scribes (most recent first) Pierre-Antoine, PhilA, DaveL, Kevin Dean -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:07:34 <TallTed> scribe assigned.
16:07:37 <TallTed> Zakim, next item
16:07:37 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, TallTed
16:07:40 <phila> Topic: Recap the discussion from TPAC and outline the plans for further developing the new charter.
16:07:45 <TallTed> Zakim, close item 1
16:07:45 <Zakim> agendum 1, Scribe assignment. Recent scribes (most recent first) Pierre-Antoine, PhilA, DaveL, Kevin Dean, closed
16:07:47 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:07:47 <Zakim> 2. Recap the discussion from TPAC and outline the plans for further developing the -> new charter https://github.com/iherman/vc-charter-2026/pull/9 . [from agendabot]
16:08:11 <phila> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Wpm0oz56VuSGEmQ51HwZAO9zqM5tSYVNJME2O907eRQ/edit?gid=1778386372#gid=1778386372
16:08:18 <KevinDean> Phila: When we were in Kobe, we spent a good chunk of our F2F looking at our draft charter, talking about the various pieces of work we wanted included and categorized them.
16:08:52 <KevinDean> ...It was that discussion at TPAC that put down names for editor, test suites, etc., assessing what the level of interest in each of the six work items was.
16:09:05 <KevinDean> ...We assigned them as "yes, definitely" and "yes, if we can".
16:09:16 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
16:09:20 <ivan> https://iherman.github.io/vc-charter-2026/
16:09:21 <phila> draft charter doc https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/iherman/vc-charter-2026/pull/9.html
16:09:25 <KevinDean> ...Based on that discussion, we ended up with the current version of the charter.
16:09:29 <JennieM> JennieM has joined #vcwg
16:09:40 <agendabot> agendabot has left #vcwg
16:10:00 <KevinDean> ...That, as far as I'm aware, is the draft charter to push to the next stage if that's what the group wants to happen.
16:10:05 <phila> q?
16:10:14 <KevinDean> Ivan: For the time being, it's a private copy in my private GitHub area.
16:10:23 <JennieM> present+
16:10:26 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
16:10:33 <JoeAndrieu> present+
16:10:34 <KevinDean> ...We need to put it into W3C. I can transfer the repository to W3C.
16:10:36 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
16:10:40 <KevinDean> scribe-
16:11:25 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: once this group approves the move we can move it through process
16:11:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... in ~6 weeks we could then move to AC review, maybe in February
16:11:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... Be good to start ASAP
16:12:14 <JoeAndrieu> phila: the result of PR #9 is what we are discussing
16:12:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... starting in April 2026 and running 2 years
16:12:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... There's a list of deliverables
16:12:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... many are already in flight: renderMethod is at FPWD
16:13:07 <denkeni> present+
16:13:09 <JoeAndrieu> ... same is true for confidence method document
16:13:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... For the stuff we discussed at TPAC, the VCALM spec
16:13:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... is already well advanced
16:13:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... We would be chartered to create that as a W3C Recommendation
16:13:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... Similar for VC Barcodes
16:14:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... and the Verifiable Issuers and Verifiers Work, which may not be as advanced as others in the list
16:14:17 <ivan> present+ JennieM
16:14:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... However, we did discuss that work in Kobe.
16:14:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... We had a workshop the day before. Kevin presented some of his work at GS1
16:15:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... and Steve [Kappel] and [ivan Merrin?] also presented
16:15:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... A VP can present multiple credentials.
16:15:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... There's a desire to link credentials independent of a VP
16:15:48 <phila> q?
16:16:00 <ivan> s/\[Kappel\]/Capell/
16:16:08 <JoeAndrieu> ... As well as accompanying credentials that establish an issuers authority wrt to issuing accompanying credentials
16:16:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... So that's the current plan.
16:16:37 <ivan> q+
16:16:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... Any comment regarding what might be missing?
16:16:45 <phila> ack ivan
16:17:16 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: it's not on there, but there were discussions in Chinese community to bring in cryptosuite based on SM2?
16:17:31 <manu> q+ to note SM2 cryptosuites (would be fine) and to note full review showed no issues.
16:17:33 <JoeAndrieu> ... at this moment, we should decide if we are fine with taking that on, assuming we hit the rest of requirements
16:17:52 <JoeAndrieu> phila: if we're going to here about it, that would be during refinement.
16:18:01 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: the AC review is too late.
16:18:09 <JoeAndrieu> phila: so let's reach out to those folks
16:18:17 <phila> ack manu
16:18:17 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note SM2 cryptosuites (would be fine) and to note full review showed no issues.
16:18:26 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I'll talk with the Chinese tomorrow
16:18:39 <JoeAndrieu> manu: yes, let's include this work. Is there a draft?
16:18:42 <dlongley> +1 to put it under tentative deliverables
16:18:52 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: I have nothing I can put there. I need a dorcument reference, title, etc. Which I don't have.
16:19:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... If it comes, I'll put it in the list depending on how mature the document is.
16:19:20 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I'm just voicing that we should figure out how to put that in scope
16:19:20 <dlongley> (assuming their draft will be provided by the potential editors)
16:19:38 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: do you have references?  But even then, we can't add it without explicit agreement
16:19:45 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I recall seeing something
16:20:05 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: we have a global team meeting tomorrow. I'll talk about the FPWD and expand to new charter.
16:20:21 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'll bring this to them
16:20:47 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I did do a top-to-bottom read of the charter and it reflects what I thought we'd agreed to in TPAC. No suggested changes yet
16:21:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... We do list the threat model in other deliverables. That is significant work that needs to be done.
16:21:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'm currently talking with another external body that isn't on the list. Do we need to add that? I'm trying to get them to join as W3C members.
16:22:02 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: the problem is if we significantly change charter during AC review, then we have to make another review cycle.
16:22:20 <JoeAndrieu> ... I'd prefer to get all of these things done by end of Jan/Feb before we go to AC
16:22:34 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Ok. I have a meeting with them today and I'll get an answer
16:23:03 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Sounds like Ivan is going to talk to our Chinese candidate and if they are on board, we'll include it. Anyone opposed to that?
16:23:07 <JoeAndrieu> [crickets]
16:23:34 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Hearing no opposition, we are good with including the SM2 work in the charter on those terms
16:23:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... Reviewing more in the charter. We will maintain the existing recommendation.
16:24:25 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to say I thought we were clear on Class 4
16:24:34 <ivan> present+ isaiah_inuwa
16:24:48 <ivan> q+
16:24:51 <phila> ack JoeAndrieu
16:24:51 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to say I thought we were clear on Class 4
16:24:54 <KevinDean> scribe+
16:25:10 <KevinDean> JoeAndrieu: I thought that at TPAC we had accepted that we were making class 4 changes.
16:25:31 <KevinDean> ...In particular, there are class 4 changes I've been arguing for in GitHub. I don't know if there's a misunderstanding.
16:25:45 <KevinDean> phila: There are notes I will put in the chat.
16:25:55 <phila> From the charter "No new normative features will be introduced for the following specifications, except as needed to address any serious privacy or security issues that arise, or to support the new Recommendations produced by the group."
16:25:57 <JoeAndrieu> phila: ... The charter at the moment does not allow Class 4 change
16:25:58 <manu> q+
16:26:08 <KevinDean> ...That doesn't allow us to say, "I've got a good idea, I would like to see VCDM adjusted thus...".
16:26:14 <KevinDean> ...Is that a problem, Joe?
16:26:20 <phila> ack ivan
16:26:34 <KevinDean> JoeAndrieu: Yes, there's a phone home problem we need to address. This is a privacy problem.
16:27:00 <KevinDean> Ivan: I added to the potential privacy problems a few weeks ago. There are changes in the PRs we're looking at that should address these issues.
16:27:08 <KevinDean> ...I thought these would cover your concerns.
16:27:15 <dlongley> +1 that the "privacy" clause in the charter covers phone home considerations
16:27:45 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to acknowledge the inclusion of privacy does address my concerns
16:27:51 <KevinDean> ...More generally, I had an issue and a problem with explaining what had happened. The text previously referred to the class 4 changes in the process document, but the whole class 4 change is about changing an existing recommendation.
16:27:52 <manu> q-
16:28:20 <manu> My understanding of the new text is the same as Ivan and Dave Longley's -- which is that Joe's concern is addressed by it being a "serious privacy issue".
16:28:31 <KevinDean> ...I added a list of all documents to be changed in the new version. In the latest PR, I removed the reference to the process document regarding class 4 changes.
16:29:01 <KevinDean> ...The question is, is it really what we want, or do we want to have all seven recommendations going through the working draft? Or do we do it only for the documents we change?
16:29:14 <KevinDean> ...It is not clear to me from the VC meetings at TPAC and unfortunately I wasn't there.
16:29:16 <phila> ack JoeAndrieu
16:29:16 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to acknowledge the inclusion of privacy does address my concerns
16:29:21 <KevinDean> ...Is it OK as it stands today or not?
16:29:51 <KevinDean> JoeAndrieu: I think you're right, Ivan, I had heard something different at TPAC but I'm OK with what's there now with the notes about privacy.
16:30:11 <KevinDean> ...You raised a separate issue, do we want all seven recommendations going through the working draft. I'm not clear on what that means.
16:30:25 <manu> q+ to suggest expectations w/ "Maintenance Specifications".
16:30:34 <phila> ack manu
16:30:34 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest expectations w/ "Maintenance Specifications".
16:30:41 <KevinDean> PhilA: If we make any changes to a recommendation, we have a high bar to get through.
16:31:29 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
16:31:34 <KevinDean> manu: The whole reason that we wanted to limit the working group from doing massive changes was because we had people in the group who would participate in, say, 2.0, but not later, and they didn't want people coming in later to undo everything.
16:31:39 <KevinDean> scribe-
16:32:11 <JoeAndrieu> manu: The current language captures that as well. If there is a serious issue we can act on it, but we can prevent folks from radical breaking changes
16:32:16 <dlongley> +1 to Manu, current language captures that the specs are stable, only serious privacy or security issues need to be addressed
16:32:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... unless they can convince us its a serious issue (privacy/security)
16:32:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... So, yes, we have to go through the whole process.
16:32:44 <JoeAndrieu> ... +1 for going through the entire process again.
16:33:02 <ivan> q+
16:33:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... My only concern there is that since we are doing a point release, we really don't need to go through the massive amount of work that goes into a horizontal review. Let's focus on the changes during review
16:33:19 <phila> ack ivan
16:33:53 <manu> q+ to say "yes" :)
16:33:57 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: here's a specific Q. Let's say that during the 2 years we only do minor editorial changes to ECDSA suite. Do we still go through a republishing process? Or we don't do it.
16:34:14 <phila> ack m
16:34:14 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say "yes" :)
16:34:16 <JoeAndrieu> ... In other words, there are 7 recommendations, will we go from FPWD to REC regardless of the level of change
16:34:23 <phila> q+
16:34:31 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I think the answer is yes, as much as I don't want to say that.
16:34:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... Let's talk about control identifier
16:35:34 <JoeAndrieu> manu: unfortunately, we will likely need to republish everything
16:35:40 <phila> ack p
16:35:49 <JoeAndrieu> ivan; Ok. then we'll start with FPWD for each. That makes the charter good as it stands.
16:36:00 <JoeAndrieu> phila: be careful what you wish for.
16:36:13 <ivan> s/ivan;/ivan:/
16:36:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... The stability of diligence is why people build on our standards.
16:37:08 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
16:37:08 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Anything else about the issue of expecting to make changes only if security/privacy concerns come to the fore?
16:37:28 <JoeAndrieu> Phil-ASU: what about advancing quantum-safe work?
16:37:33 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: next section
16:37:54 <JoeAndrieu> phila: at TPAC there were other documents we discussed and there wasn't the same level of participation (editors, implementations, etc.)
16:38:14 <JoeAndrieu> ... that does not mean that quantum, wireless, or refresh work can't be done. These are listed as tentative deliverables.
16:38:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... So should we have capacity and willingness, then we can.
16:38:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... Apart from the SM2 work mentioned earlier, anything else the group wants?
16:38:49 <JoeAndrieu> [crickets]
16:38:55 <JoeAndrieu> phila: That's the right answer.
16:39:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... Threat Model for VCs
16:39:05 <KevinDean> scribe+
16:39:21 <KevinDean> JoeAndrieu: We're going to need a threat model whether it's a separate deliverable or not.
16:39:23 <Phil-ASU> Thanks - I was concerned in the current discussion as to whether that uncertainty impacts the recharter but you've addressed this.
16:39:33 <KevinDean> ...The security considerations that Simone is leading requires one.
16:39:54 <KevinDean> ...It may be a single threat model for all threats or it might be a shared diagram if the threats are different for each document.
16:40:16 <KevinDean> ...For each of those specs, we have identify the threats specific to each, which is a lot of work.
16:40:29 <KevinDean> ...We'll have a draft of the threat modeling guide from the SING that we can use for this.
16:40:37 <KevinDean> ...I don't think there's any impact on the charter.
16:40:43 <KevinDean> scribe-
16:40:48 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
16:40:53 <manu> q+
16:40:57 <phila> ack m
16:41:00 <JoeAndrieu> phila: we have plenty of agency if we have the capacity
16:41:19 <JoeAndrieu> manu: +1 to that. I'll note the implementation interoperability dashboard exists as CanIVC.com?
16:41:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... we talking with W3C about donating that
16:41:39 <JoeAndrieu> ... probably not a change to the charter
16:41:50 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about scope of that work?
16:42:04 <phila> ack j
16:42:04 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about scope of that work?
16:42:09 <KevinDean> scribe+
16:42:10 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
16:42:22 <bigbluehat> present+
16:42:28 <manu> q+
16:42:34 <phila> ack m
16:42:39 <KevinDean> JoeAndrieu: This is giving ??? to W3C. If the working group were running that site, that's the working group doing something I haven't seen it do before.
16:42:43 <KevinDean> scribe-
16:42:44 <bigbluehat> q+
16:43:00 <ivan> s/???/CanIVC/
16:43:05 <JoeAndrieu> manu: the web platform test is similar to this
16:43:11 <phila> ack b
16:43:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... but it shouldn't be a major focus of the WG. We don't have firmer answers about how we run it.
16:44:08 <JoeAndrieu> bigbluehat: I think the governance model questions are still being sorted out with W3C. Code is not something they've done a tone of. But there is interest in continuing this work.
16:44:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... Having it on the charter is a signal of support to handle it here. Otherwise, we could take it to CCG.
16:44:37 <JoeAndrieu> ... Worth considering.
16:44:58 <JoeAndrieu> phila: These are things the group may do. Not required. Good work. Good will to date.
16:45:13 <JoeAndrieu> ... on to Render Method and Confidence Method
16:45:34 <JoeAndrieu> ... Before that, we do have collaborators (formerly liasons) do we need to reach out to any of these?
16:45:53 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: i think that list is fairly mature.
16:46:16 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: we can reach out once the group is chartered.
16:46:31 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Formally, we HAVE to contact each of these groups.
16:46:42 <manu> q+
16:46:45 <phila> ack m
16:46:46 <JoeAndrieu> ... Do we need to reach out to ALL of them? Are these all here for a reason?
16:46:58 <JoeAndrieu> manu: Yes. They are there for a reason.
16:47:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... we reach out to them via updates from github.
16:47:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... They are getting the feed of what issues we are dealing with, with links.
16:47:43 <JoeAndrieu> ... We don't have a direct liason, but we have an automated mechanism that reduces the burden.
16:48:00 <JoeAndrieu> ... if what we did with 2.0 is good enough, we're ready on this score
16:48:14 <phila> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG would like the current draft charter at https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/iherman/vc-charter-2026/pull/9.html for Charter refinement
16:48:52 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: can I merge the PR and use a proper URL (instead of Preview)
16:49:05 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Anyone not want to merge?
16:49:14 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: [crickets] MERGED
16:49:25 <JoeAndrieu> ... new URL pending
16:49:42 <phila> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG would like the current draft charter at https://iherman.github.io/vc-charter-2026/ for formal Charter refinement
16:50:01 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I'm trying to propose a rewording
16:50:26 <phila> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG would like the current draft charter at https://iherman.github.io/vc-charter-2026/ to be put forward for formal Charter refinement
16:50:28 <JoeAndrieu> ... The VCWG approves for review
16:50:35 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:50:48 <ivan> q+
16:50:59 <JoeAndrieu> ack
16:51:06 <JoeAndrieu> q
16:51:10 <JoeAndrieu> q-
16:51:12 <phila> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://iherman.github.io/vc-charter-2026/ to be put forward for formal Charter refinement, noting the possible addition of the SM2 cryptosuite as a tentative work item addition
16:51:17 <ivan> q-
16:51:35 <phila> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://iherman.github.io/vc-charter-2026/ to be put forward for formal Charter refinement, noting the possible addition of the SM2 cryptosuite as a tentative work item
16:51:39 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: not yet clear to me
16:52:04 <dlongley> +1 to Ivan's proposal
16:52:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... can I put the document NOW or do I have to wait for SM2. I propose we put it in right away.
16:52:09 <phila> Proposed Resolution: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://iherman.github.io/vc-charter-2026/ to be put forward for formal Charter refinement
16:52:14 <Phil-ASU> +1 to Ivan's proposal as well
16:52:21 <JoeAndrieu> phila: Ok.
16:52:27 <phila> +1
16:52:29 <ivan> +1
16:52:31 <denkeni> +1
16:52:32 <Phil-ASU> +1
16:52:32 <manu> +1
16:52:33 <dlongley> +1
16:52:33 <JoeAndrieu> +1
16:52:36 <bigbluehat> +1
16:52:37 <JennieM> +1
16:52:40 <KevinDean> +1
16:52:54 <hsano> +1
16:53:28 <phila> Resolution: The VCWG approves the current draft charter at https://iherman.github.io/vc-charter-2026/ to be put forward for formal Charter refinement
16:53:52 <JoeAndrieu> phila: thank you. That's a great milestone to get to.
16:54:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... last minute for renderMethod and confidenceMethod
16:54:17 <phila> Topic: Render and Confidence methods
16:54:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+
16:54:22 <phila> ack j
16:55:38 <ivan> q+
16:55:45 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I need access to the Spec Refinement meeting infrastructure to start meetings.
16:55:50 <manu> Manu: I can fix that for you, Joe.
16:55:56 <phila> ack ivan
16:56:10 <manu> JoeAndrieu: We are making progress on Confidence Method... and also Render Method, no blockers.
16:56:13 <JoeAndrieu> scribe+
16:56:13 <TallTed> i/what i usually see /<TallTed> +1
16:56:21 <JoeAndrieu> phila: we've reach the next phase with Charter.
16:56:30 <JoeAndrieu> ... next meeting Jan 14.
16:56:48 <JoeAndrieu> ... Leave it to editors of rendermethod and confidence method next week
16:57:19 <JoeAndrieu> ... Dmitri and Joe, is one of you meeting this time next week
16:58:28 <JoeAndrieu> next wednesday we'll do confidenceMethod. Then renderMethod in January.
16:58:55 <JoeAndrieu> ivan: please try to annunciate subclass and superclass well.
16:59:07 <JoeAndrieu> phila: thanks everyone
16:59:18 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:59:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/10-vcwg-minutes.html phila
16:59:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... Happy Christmas, See you in the new year
17:00:34 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:00:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items