14:37:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:37:30 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/11-vcwg-irc
14:37:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:37:31 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
14:37:40 <ivan> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group Telco
14:37:40 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2026Mar/0001.html
14:37:40 <ivan> chair: brentz, phila
14:37:40 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2026-03-11: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2026Mar/0001.html
14:58:26 <phila> phila has joined #vcwg
14:58:33 <hsano> hsano has joined #vcwg
14:58:43 <ivan> present+
15:00:51 <hsano> present+
15:01:12 <ivan> present+ isaac
15:01:21 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
15:01:28 <ivan> present+ phila
15:01:35 <ivan> present+ will
15:01:42 <ivan> present+ manu
15:02:13 <Wip> Wip has joined #vcwg
15:02:15 <Wip> present+
15:02:37 <ivan> present+ dmitriz
15:02:43 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has joined #vcwg
15:03:01 <bigbluehat> present+
15:03:01 <bigbluehat> scribe+
15:03:01 <TallTed> present+
15:03:02 <ivan> present+ jandrieu
15:03:13 <bigbluehat> phila: thanks bigbluehat for scribing
15:03:13 <ivan> present+ elaine
15:03:23 <bigbluehat> ... we'll be covering the new charter which was approved today
15:03:25 <manu> q+ to agenda+ just some PRs on VCDM.
15:03:34 <bigbluehat> ... I've got an update on the VCDM
15:03:38 <bigbluehat> ... and we'll talk about the F2F in June
15:03:38 <bigbluehat> Topic: new charter
15:03:52 <bigbluehat> ... ivan can you tell us about the new charter
15:03:59 <phila> https://www.w3.org/2026/03/vc-wg-charter.html
15:04:05 <bigbluehat> ivan: just announced about an hour ago
15:04:08 <bigbluehat> ... we made it!
15:04:18 <bigbluehat> ... there were some minor changes at the last round with the management
15:04:25 <bigbluehat> ... stuff we added to the tentative deliverable list
15:04:49 <bigbluehat> ... we made explicit what was implicitly there--that there must be IPR agreements before the WG can accept them
15:04:57 <bigbluehat> ... there are three documents from "outside"
15:05:05 <bigbluehat> ... so we had to add some text about monitoring the IPR
15:05:11 <bigbluehat> ... that's the most important change that we've done
15:05:37 <PDL> PDL has joined #vcwg
15:05:37 <bigbluehat> ... one of the titles did have "European" in it--which we removed to make it clear that these are global standards
15:05:46 <bigbluehat> ... you also likely got emails about being kicked out of the WG
15:05:52 <bigbluehat> ... but you will also be invited to rejoin
15:06:11 <bigbluehat> ... that's about it.
15:06:20 <bigbluehat> phila: great work everyone. congrats!
15:06:29 <KevinDean> KevinDean has joined #vcwg
15:06:29 <bigbluehat> ... please reapply for the jobs you were just fired from
15:06:33 <bigbluehat> ... I do hope everyone will
15:06:33 <KevinDean> present+
15:06:42 <bigbluehat> ... if you've been debating about joining, I hope you do
15:06:49 <ivan> present+ PDL
15:06:56 <bigbluehat> ... I'll be syncing up with Brent soon, so we can plan how we'll do all this work
15:07:13 <bigbluehat> ... if we focus on just what we MUST do--which was discussed at TPAC last year
15:07:22 <bigbluehat> ... VCALM, Bar Codes, etc. all need to be done
15:07:33 <ivan> present+ dlongley
15:07:35 <bigbluehat> ... and VCDMv2 PRs
15:07:49 <bigbluehat> ... even if we don't get to the tentative deliverables, there's still loads to do
15:07:59 <bigbluehat> ... if you put your hand up as an editor, it's time to start
15:08:06 <bigbluehat> ... we'll likely be doing more frequent calls
15:08:06 <manu> q+
15:08:16 <bigbluehat> ... how often these "everybody" calls should be?
15:08:30 <bigbluehat> manu: I think the big group call at once of month is fine
15:08:38 <ivan> q+
15:08:44 <ivan> ack manu
15:08:44 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agenda+ just some PRs on VCDM. and to
15:08:46 <bigbluehat> ... we used to do them weekly and some concurrent special topic calls
15:08:56 <bigbluehat> ... we do have existing meetings happening under the CCG
15:09:07 <bigbluehat> ... we can shift those to WG meetings, but folks will need to change their status
15:09:14 <bigbluehat> ... and we'll have to deal with attendance as we go
15:09:26 <bigbluehat> ... but we do already have existing meetings for most of these work items
15:09:39 <bigbluehat> ... the good news is that I don't think it will take a tremendous amount of reshuffling
15:09:50 <bigbluehat> ... as long as it's OK to shift those existing meetings
15:09:56 <bigbluehat> ivan: just to be legalistic
15:10:02 <bigbluehat> ... I'd prefer we have weekly meetings
15:10:15 <bigbluehat> ... we could still pick specific topics occasionally, like Render Method
15:10:26 <bigbluehat> ... mainly, because the small group meetings are not allowed to make binding decisions
15:10:41 <bigbluehat> ... so if any resolution is needed, it would have to happen in the "big" call
15:11:00 <bigbluehat> ... so, I'd suggest a "big call" once a week, but also continue the small group meetings
15:11:17 <bigbluehat> phila: so...no one likes to go to meetings they don't feel needed at
15:11:21 <bigbluehat> ... so, here's an idea
15:11:29 <manu> q+ to note that 90 minutes are a bit rough.
15:11:37 <KevinDean> 30/30?
15:11:37 <bigbluehat> ... what if we did a 90 minute call, and a 60 minute calls on the smaller topics
15:11:38 <TallTed> +1 weekly timeslot which can be cancelled if there's nothing to do. All lower frequencies fall off people's mental if not other calendars.
15:11:44 <ivan> ack ivan
15:11:46 <PDL> present+
15:11:49 <bigbluehat> ivan: many of us have conflicts afterward
15:11:58 <bigbluehat> manu: same problem here
15:12:04 <bigbluehat> ... I think what we've been doing has been working well
15:12:16 <dlongley> frequent cancellations can be confusing -- bringing any resolutions to the monthly meeting might be the way to go -- for all specs
15:12:19 <bigbluehat> ... I do think we should meet more often for Render Method and Confidence Method
15:12:27 <bigbluehat> ... which currently trade off, so there's often 2 weeks between
15:12:36 <dlongley> (my "cancellations" comment is in response to ted)
15:12:39 <bigbluehat> ... and folks are getting confused about which topic is the current call topic
15:12:54 <bigbluehat> ... to be clear, we're already talking about 7 hours of calls a week
15:12:56 <bigbluehat> ... which is insane
15:13:02 <bigbluehat> ... we're already doing 5 hours of calls
15:13:03 <TallTed> (I don't expect frequent cancellations, as I think we pretty much always have stuff to do.)
15:13:12 <bigbluehat> ... the current cadence seems fine to move things forward
15:13:21 <bigbluehat> ... but we should really lean on the editors to ask for more call time
15:13:30 <bigbluehat> ... and the group that is meeting can inform the schedule
15:13:53 <bigbluehat> phila: so I know we've got 3 meetings in conflict on this current call time
15:14:02 <bigbluehat> ... but VCALM is at a different time
15:14:09 <bigbluehat> ... folks on that will have to resign and rejoin
15:14:25 <bigbluehat> ... Elaine, is the Bar Code group meeting happening?
15:14:33 <bigbluehat> Elaine: we were waiting on the recharter
15:14:42 <bigbluehat> ... manu, what was the call schedule before?
15:14:59 <bigbluehat> manu: we haven't met for awhile, I would suggest, though, that we keep it separate
15:15:05 <bigbluehat> ... really the editors should inform it
15:15:29 <bigbluehat> phila: to get to CR in 18 months...
15:15:37 <bigbluehat> ... some of these will be easy, some specs will not be
15:15:46 <bigbluehat> .... so, let's move on
15:15:52 <bigbluehat> topic: VCDM
15:16:06 <bigbluehat> manu: just drawing people's attention to some PRs
15:16:14 <phila> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
15:16:16 <bigbluehat> ... Lehn sent a PR about referencing Render Method
15:16:21 <bigbluehat> ... there are some suggested changes
15:16:36 <bigbluehat> ... then a few more PRs raised yesterday about some class # changes
15:16:53 <bigbluehat> ... but we'll give those the usual "week" review time
15:17:04 <bigbluehat> phila: how far are we from VCDM v2.1?
15:17:18 <bigbluehat> manu: v2.1 is supposed to be a refresh, no new features, that sort of thing
15:17:25 <bigbluehat> ... we could do it today, but I don't think we should
15:17:35 <bigbluehat> ... I think we should let the other specs mature a bit more before we rev VCDM
15:17:49 <bigbluehat> ... because they, like Confidence Method, may effect what goes into VCDMv2.1.
15:17:53 <dlongley> +1 to let the other specs mature to see if we need new features, but hopefully not as it saves us more work
15:18:11 <ivan> q+
15:18:14 <bigbluehat> ... at minimum, we're likely to make changes to the context
15:18:21 <bigbluehat> ... and the process around CR can be pretty heavy
15:18:36 <bigbluehat> ... so I'd suggest we attempt Rec for VCDMv2.1 in a year
15:18:43 <bigbluehat> ivan: have we published it as a FPWD yet?
15:18:45 <bigbluehat> manu: no
15:18:54 <bigbluehat> ivan: so to make it official, we should at least do that
15:18:59 <manu> q+
15:19:04 <bigbluehat> ... which will start the IPR process, etc.
15:19:06 <bigbluehat> manu: +1 to that
15:19:11 <bigbluehat> ... I'm happy to move that forward
15:19:34 <bigbluehat> ... I think what we said was that we were not going to publish a FPWD until we're sure it's needed
15:19:55 <bigbluehat> ... like Bitstring Status List doesn't look like it needs any changes, so we wouldn't rev it's version
15:20:04 <bigbluehat> ivan: correct. I was only talking about VCDMv2.1
15:20:10 <bigbluehat> manu: great. Just wanted to clarify that scope
15:20:26 <bigbluehat> phila: if this group exists for anything, it's for the maintenance of the VCDMv2.1
15:20:41 <bigbluehat> ... we do need a resolution
15:20:52 <bigbluehat> ... but I would like to check in with Brent first
15:21:25 <bigbluehat> ... during the lifetime of this charter--which started today--if we don't think we'll be to CR for a year, then we should plan the rest of the process
15:21:35 <bigbluehat> ... clearly, the VCDM is the core specification for this group
15:21:35 <bigbluehat> topic: VC specifications published with ISO
15:21:48 <bigbluehat> phila: and a question has been raised around whether we should push it through the ISO process
15:21:56 <bigbluehat> ... Rigo wants to make it happen
15:21:57 <manu> q+ to support publication of W3C VC specs via ISO PAS.
15:22:02 <bigbluehat> ... I and Brent are in favor of it
15:22:07 <manu> q+
15:22:07 <ivan> q+
15:22:15 <ivan> ack manu
15:22:15 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that 90 minutes are a bit rough. and to  and to support publication of W3C VC specs via ISO PAS. and to
15:22:18 <bigbluehat> manu: +1 to doing that
15:22:33 <bigbluehat> ... I think we should use the process to get ISO equivalence
15:23:04 <bigbluehat> ivan: we're working on a tool that can be used for this process
15:23:14 <manu> q+ to ask "which specs"?
15:23:19 <bigbluehat> ... so wait a bit phila but there are some good things coming, hopefully
15:23:26 <bigbluehat> ... we're also hearing conflicting things from ISO
15:23:35 <bigbluehat> ... do we need to produce a PDF or a Word file?
15:24:08 <bigbluehat> ... do we need to match the ISO style?
15:24:08 <phila> q?
15:24:11 <phila> ack iv
15:24:15 <bigbluehat> ... we're fighting to get permission to avoid that kind of a revision
15:24:22 <bigbluehat> ... I don't want to get into all those details
15:24:33 <bigbluehat> ... we mainly need to know if this group supports it at ISO
15:24:38 <phila> ack manu
15:24:38 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask "which specs"?
15:24:42 <bigbluehat> manu: which one of our specs should we do?
15:24:45 <dlongley> +1 to doing all the specs
15:24:49 <bigbluehat> ... my suggestion is as many as possible
15:25:11 <ivan> q+
15:25:21 <bigbluehat> ... especially, whichever ones provide the foundation for an interoperable ecosystem
15:25:44 <bigbluehat> ... also, I have seen ISO spec's published that are 2 page PDFs which point to other specs
15:25:55 <bigbluehat> ... and people buy the PDF that contains the link...
15:26:08 <bigbluehat> ... I don't know what the process for that is, but we should at least ask about it
15:26:25 <bigbluehat> ivan: for the which document question: it comes back to this WG
15:26:38 <bigbluehat> ... the idea from management is to start with the VCDM to learn the process
15:26:47 <bigbluehat> ... and once we understand the process, we try to do all the others
15:26:58 <phila> ack ivan
15:27:19 <bigbluehat> ivan: for the second question, they have made the process harder in recent years
15:27:28 <bigbluehat> ... WCAG has just gone to ISO and published their work
15:27:34 <bigbluehat> ... and it had to be converted to Word
15:27:45 <manu> q+
15:27:46 <bigbluehat> ... but he did make the case that the text could stay the same
15:27:49 <bigbluehat> ... but the format changed
15:28:02 <bigbluehat> ... if anyone can help change things at ISO, please do
15:28:44 <bigbluehat> phila: if we just do VCDM, does that create an ecosystem on it's own?
15:28:58 <bigbluehat> ... or does it need Data Integrity, Bitstring Status List, etc?
15:29:04 <phila> ack manu
15:29:07 <bigbluehat> manu: yes +1 to that
15:29:10 <bigbluehat> ... we should look into
15:29:27 <bigbluehat> ... I know ISO standards do reference other specs, so maybe we only need to ISO VCDM
15:29:40 <bigbluehat> ... I'd be minus one on bundling everything together
15:30:00 <bigbluehat> ... then the excuse can become, we followed the ISO bundled version published 10 years ago
15:30:05 <bigbluehat> ... my hope is that wouldn't happen
15:30:24 <bigbluehat> ... but it is why I'd prefer VCDM be the primary one and reference the others
15:30:33 <bigbluehat> ... however, I don't think VCDM does not reference all the related parts
15:30:34 <phila> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/#normative-references
15:30:49 <bigbluehat> ... it may reference Data Integrity, but not the cryptosuites
15:31:04 <bigbluehat> ... but I agree starting with VCDM makes sense
15:31:21 <bigbluehat> ... so, a long term option may be to help Respec make Word docs
15:31:38 <bigbluehat> ... there's an open XML format for Word from a decade ago
15:31:47 <bigbluehat> ... but we'd need to be clear that it's auto-generated
15:31:54 <ivan> q+
15:32:12 <bigbluehat> ... the danger is that the changes would end up in the W3C spec...which would not be wanted
15:32:24 <bigbluehat> ivan: yeah, that should be prevented. W3C is in charge of it's specs.
15:32:30 <bigbluehat> ... we keep the IPR. We keep it free.
15:32:39 <phila> ack ivan
15:32:42 <bigbluehat> ... and W3C standards MUST keep it's same weight as before
15:33:15 <bigbluehat> phila: there are others who have views on getting VCDM v2.0 into the ISO?
15:33:24 <bigbluehat> ... it would be the only spec at ISO for at least at year
15:34:01 <bigbluehat> PDL: I'd support getting the VCDM in makes sense
15:34:05 <dlongley> q+
15:34:08 <phila> ack dlongley
15:34:14 <manu> q+
15:34:17 <bigbluehat> ... and we've got too much other work to do before trying to get the others there
15:34:26 <bigbluehat> dlongley: we do need to check the normative references
15:34:42 <phila> q+
15:34:45 <phila> ack manu
15:34:45 <bigbluehat> ... not sure we can update the VCDM without having to rev the spec when we add them
15:34:51 <bigbluehat> ... but we do need to make sure the links are there
15:34:57 <bigbluehat> manu: +1 to the idea
15:35:17 <bigbluehat> ... we do point to Data Integrity and VC JOSE Cose, but neither of those point to the cryptosuites
15:35:27 <ivan> q+
15:35:44 <bigbluehat> ... so, when we do the ISO thing, we should provide a list of normative things in the ISO spec
15:35:45 <PDL> +1 to Manu's suggestion
15:35:46 <phila> ack phila
15:36:02 <bigbluehat> phila: I do have a limited experience with ISO
15:36:15 <bigbluehat> ... I know from that experience and others that they worry a lot about normative references
15:36:35 <bigbluehat> ... recently there was a big deal made about "informative references" being taken out--what they call a bibliography
15:37:04 <bigbluehat> ... so if we really feel the cryptosuites and things need to be an ISO standard, we will need to discuss that
15:37:32 <bigbluehat> ... but at minimum, we need to get the VCDM into ISO so it can be pointed to by regulators and those who only do that
15:37:51 <phila> ack ivan
15:37:53 <bigbluehat> q+
15:37:58 <ivan> q+
15:38:57 <phila> ack bigbluehat
15:39:07 <PDL> It also matters in some instances when procurements are being done by some organizations
15:39:23 <phila> ack ivan
15:39:44 <bigbluehat> ivan: I am not sure the indirect reference will work in terms of ISO
15:40:19 <bigbluehat> phila: it's that normative references to other things become normative for the ISO spec
15:40:20 <dlongley> q+
15:40:36 <phila> ack dlongley
15:40:37 <bigbluehat> ... so when I wrote a standard that pointed to the URI spec at the IETF, that spec became part of the other one
15:41:11 <manu> q+
15:41:15 <phila> ack manu
15:41:31 <bigbluehat> manu: I think the thing we want to do can be worked out as we take the journy
15:41:37 <bigbluehat> s/journy/journey
15:42:16 <ivan> q+
15:42:41 <phila> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2.0 (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/) to the ISO PAS process
15:42:44 <bigbluehat> ivan: do we want to go with VCDMv2.0 vs. v2.1?
15:42:45 <phila> ack ivan
15:42:47 <bigbluehat> manu: v2.0
15:42:49 <bigbluehat> phila: agreed
15:43:02 <bigbluehat> ... it's because v2.1 is a long way out
15:43:16 <bigbluehat> ivan: won't the ISO process take the same amount of time?
15:43:33 <bigbluehat> phila: yes, but what gets published is what's sent in at the start of the process
15:43:33 <PDL> This is being played out in the mDL server verification recommendation dispute (aka "no phone home")
15:43:41 <bigbluehat> ... so we have to start with something that's complete
15:44:03 <manu> q+
15:44:07 <ivan> q+
15:44:08 <phila> ack manu
15:44:18 <bigbluehat> ... I wasn't sure at the beginning of the call, but if v2.1 will take a year (as it sounds), then we'd be delaying the whole thing
15:44:24 <bigbluehat> manu: I think we should do 2.0
15:44:28 <bigbluehat> ... there is an upgrade process
15:44:45 <bigbluehat> ... so you'd get an ISO # like ISO####:YYYY version
15:44:47 <dlongley> +1 to do 2.0 and use the upgrade process
15:44:54 <phila> ack ivan
15:45:05 <phila> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2.0 (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/) to the ISO PAS process
15:45:15 <bigbluehat> ... so, I definitely think we should start with v2.0
15:45:20 <PDL> +1 to submitting 2.0 and use the update process that ISO uses
15:45:22 <bigbluehat> ivan: can we put that in the resolution?
15:45:32 <bigbluehat> ... state that we plan to update it?
15:45:44 <bigbluehat> ... I just don't want us to be stuck
15:46:02 <bigbluehat> phila: let's try that one then
15:46:03 <phila> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2 (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/) to the ISO PAS process.
15:46:06 <manu> +1
15:46:08 <PDL> +1
15:46:09 <dlongley> +1
15:46:09 <phila> +1
15:46:09 <bigbluehat> +1
15:46:10 <TallTed> +1
15:46:12 <ivan> +1
15:46:14 <Wip> +1
15:46:22 <phila> RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2 (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/) to the ISO PAS process.
15:46:33 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:46:50 <manu> q+ to ask about FCGS :)
15:46:57 <bigbluehat> topic: Face to Face in June
15:47:15 <manu> q-
15:47:35 <bigbluehat> phila: face-to-face in June. Charter is up and running, so I believe this is happening.
15:47:48 <bigbluehat> ... we hope to host you in Brussels at the GS1 offices there
15:47:53 <bigbluehat> ... we plan to do a social event
15:48:12 <bigbluehat> ... fries with mayonnaise will be a thing
15:48:17 <bigbluehat> ... also beer and chocolate
15:48:49 <PDL> +1 to both - fallback if not beer
15:49:01 <bigbluehat> ... we'd do the tour in the afternoon, most likely
15:49:06 <JoeAndrieu> what are the dates?
15:49:09 <bigbluehat> ... the room we'll have holds up to 30 people
15:49:14 <JoeAndrieu> thahnks
15:49:19 <bigbluehat> ... and good telecon setup, so remote folks can join
15:49:28 <ivan> q+
15:49:39 <bigbluehat> ... we also have additional meeting rooms for breakouts
15:49:54 <phila> ack ivan
15:49:58 <bigbluehat> ... so, if you are working on a specific deliverable and want a breakout, that can be accomodated
15:50:10 <bigbluehat> ivan: so, Brussels is pretty big
15:50:17 <bigbluehat> ... the meeting place is not in the historical center
15:50:25 <bigbluehat> ... do you have a list of hotels near the office?
15:50:39 <bigbluehat> phila: there are not hotels near the office...well, one, but I don't like it
15:50:46 <bigbluehat> ... I'll send out more info soon
15:50:58 <bigbluehat> ... the one I recommend is a bit of a trek
15:51:12 <bigbluehat> ... the Moxy is great for breakfasts and stuff
15:51:17 <manu> q+ to ask about CCG publishing Final Community Group Specifications for New Normative Specifications.
15:51:20 <phila> ack manu
15:51:20 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about CCG publishing Final Community Group Specifications for New Normative Specifications.
15:51:38 <phila> Topic: CCG Reports
15:51:41 <bigbluehat> manu: we have work in our charter that we now need to migrate into the WG
15:51:47 <bigbluehat> ... I'm not suggesting we do this all at once
15:51:55 <bigbluehat> ... we have new normative specs
15:52:06 <bigbluehat> ... they have normative work put into them and continue to be developed
15:52:18 <bigbluehat> ... we should ask the CCG to publish them as Final Community Group Reports
15:52:25 <bigbluehat> ... that will get the IPR stuff done
15:52:34 <bigbluehat> ... and then we can adopt them here in the WG
15:52:53 <bigbluehat> ... so I'd like us to resolve to pull in the spec Drafts listed in our charter
15:53:00 <bigbluehat> phila: do we need a resolution for that?
15:53:10 <bigbluehat> manu: it would make it easier to do, yes.
15:53:38 <bigbluehat> phila: it does mean that folks who want to stay involved
15:53:49 <bigbluehat> ... is there anyone who we know cannot make that transition?
15:54:39 <manu> q+
15:54:45 <phila> ack manu
15:55:17 <bigbluehat> manu: we have tried throughout the process in the CCG to make sure Invited Expert processes were done for anyone making significant contributions
15:55:24 <bigbluehat> ... we will have to check again to be sure
15:55:31 <bigbluehat> ... and that will really fall to the editors
15:55:36 <phila> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt all draft specifications listed in the New Normative Specifications section of the 2026 W3C VCWG Charter (https://w3c.github.io/vc-charter-2026/). Request that the Credentials Community Group publish Final Community Group Specifications for each specification.
15:56:13 <manu> s/Group Specifications/Group Reports/
15:56:27 <manu> s/each specification/each document/
15:56:37 <phila> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt all draft specifications listed in the New Normative Specifications section of the 2026 W3C VCWG Charter (https://w3c.github.io/vc-charter-2026/). Request that the Credentials Community Group publish Final Community Group Reports for each document.
15:56:47 <ivan> +1
15:56:47 <phila> +1
15:56:48 <manu> +1
15:56:48 <bigbluehat> +1
15:56:48 <dlongley> +1
15:56:50 <dmitriz> +1
15:56:51 <TallTed> +1
15:56:52 <Wip> +1
15:56:57 <PDL> +1
15:57:15 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:57:48 <phila> RESOLUTION: Adopt all draft specifications listed in the New Normative Specifications section of the 2026 W3C VCWG Charter (https://w3c.github.io/vc-charter-2026/). Request that the Credentials Community Group publish Final Community Group Reports for each document.
15:57:56 <bigbluehat> phila: yes, we will need to re-explain much of this if/when the technology changes to auto-scribing
15:58:15 <bigbluehat> ... the thing we did not get to today are the two specs currently in flight: Confidence and Resolution
15:58:25 <phila> Topic: Confidence Method
15:58:23 <JoeAndrieu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-confidence-method/pull/29
15:58:35 <bigbluehat> JoeAndrieu: we need to get into the nitty gritty
15:58:41 <bigbluehat> ... but that PR shows more about the status
15:58:46 <bigbluehat> ... we're meeting next week
15:58:53 <bigbluehat> ... so please look at that if you hope to attend
15:59:07 <bigbluehat> phila: thanks bigbluehat for scribing
15:59:11 <bigbluehat> ... and everyone for coming
15:59:14 <bigbluehat> ... talk soon
15:59:21 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes