Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal #448
[wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal #448
Changes from all commits
bf15703
aacf57d
a34539e
9630c30
ca925c4
1ecaa35
70a1458
d8df047
8cc49a2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Along with my proposed changes, I support this change and have budgeted my time and energy to continue to escalate objections against any further work planned by this WG that could possibly abuse process in the ways that I have so painfully observed when its members are not properly constrained.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have always assumed that this proposed language applies anyway, but I guess it helps to emphasize it, so I'd support this too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would be willing to resubmit a pull request substantially similar to DID Implementation Guide pull #36 if this WG, under the current heightened scrutiny, agrees that pursuing consensus is required for Notes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that although the email summaries reference the original change proposed by @pchampin , which looks like:
the current text under discussion is:
So if you are only reading along in email then you will be misled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jandrieu just to be clear about the changes you suggest above :
by "pursue consensus", do you mean to rule out completely recourse to Section 5.2.2. Managing Dissent and Section 5.2.3. Deciding by Vote of the process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not. I mean to make sure that staff & chairs don't assert that actions taken in the name of the group do not require the seeking of consensus.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Remove the Notes. The working group will not publish any new notes. See also change in "Out of Scope" section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I cannot suggest changes in the "Out of Scope" section, because this is not my pull request. @pchampin , please implement @iherman 's suggestion to state that Notes are out of scope.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Making all possible Notes out of scope for the next DID WG would be a severe limitation. I'm not understanding the reasoning behind this?
The nature of a Working Group is to produce Recommendations. Sometimes these Recommendations are benefitted by the additional publication of useful documents that are associated with the Recommendation.
A ban on all Notes would prohibit the next DID WG from publishing anything other than Recommendation track documents. It would formally put out of scope any updates to the DID Method Rubric, DID Use Cases, DID Implementation Guide, etc.
Without a strong argument from a large group in support of removing Notes from the charter, I could not support this step.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with @brentzundel. I can't think of a recent W3C WG that was limited in this way from publishing Notes. Digital Bazaar would not support such a limitation because part of what a maintenance WG needs to do is maintain the Notes it has already published... the Use Cases, Rubric, and Implementation Guide being at least among the set of Notes that need to be maintained.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@brentzundel
This is a straw man argument. I have not proposed a ban on all notes. I have proposed a ban on new notes. If there are new notes that you want, let us know now.
@msporny
You are supporting a straw man argument. If there are new notes that you want, let us know now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rxgrant, my understanding is that @jandrieu's proposed change adequately addresses your issue about notes (that's how I read your response). Therefore, I'm resolving this conversation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
unresolving this conversation, as I had misunderstood @rxgrant's comment. My apologies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rxgrant and others, how about something like this as an idea?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not okay to me to ask the WG to "support efforts" elsewhere. That has all the same problems as doing something in the WG!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
proposal: Notes should not include submissions for DID Methods and should not address issues regarding any particular DID Method. The WG welcomes DID Method standardization outside the WG (whether in the W3C or in other standards bodies).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should set a more specific bar than just "open specification". @cwilso and I suggested over email that it be something like
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We would oppose this.
None of the DID methods are at that level of maturity.
However, I agree that some further definition of "open" might be useful.