Skip to content
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

Bikeshed the DID specification short name #76

Closed
msporny opened this issue Oct 17, 2019 · 18 comments
Assignees

Comments

@msporny
Copy link
Member

@msporny msporny commented Oct 17, 2019

One of the things the WG needs to do is pick a short name for the specification. Let's use this issue to do that. Here are the bike shedding rules:

  1. One short name proposal per comment. You can explain why it's a good or bad option in the comment.
  2. Only thumbs up and thumbs down will be counted. All other emojis will be ignored for the purposes of voting, but feel free to emoji your heart out.
  3. The Chairs and W3C Staff Contact have the final say, this is just a way to gather data for them and avoid didy-mc-didface short name scenarios.
  4. Comments that put too much distance between voting options may be deleted/moved to bunch the options near the top.

Ready... GO!

@msporny msporny self-assigned this Oct 17, 2019
@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 17, 2019

Short name: did-spec
URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec/

This is what the spec is named now. It's probably a bad short name because there may be other DID specs, like did-resolution, or (in time) did method specs.

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 17, 2019

Short name: did-data-model
URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-data-model/

This proposal follows the pattern we did for Verifiable Credentials. It is a data model spec, but it's also a DID Method Requirements and DID Syntax document as well, which makes it not an entirely ideal name.

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 17, 2019

Short name: did-core
URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/

Feels like the right direction... this is the core DID spec, and it allows for other did-* specs to surface in time... like did-resolution, and did-method-foo, etc.

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 17, 2019

Short name: did
URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/did/

This was suggested on the call. Seems to have the same problems as did-spec... there may be a few other did-* specs... it's not as bad as did-spec, but it's close.

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 17, 2019

Short name: did-layer1
URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/did-layer1/

This is an attempt to model the name after CSS Level 1.

@msporny msporny added the discuss label Oct 17, 2019
@iherman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@iherman iherman commented Oct 19, 2019

Can we declare victory for https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ ?

Cc: @burnburn @brentzundel

(Comment edited, I originally took the wrong winner:-(

@dlongley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@dlongley dlongley commented Oct 19, 2019

@iherman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@iherman iherman commented Oct 20, 2019

@dlongley Sorry. Indeed; edited the comment

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 20, 2019

Can we declare victory for https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ ?

Let's announce this is where we are during the upcoming call... I'm a bit concerned that not enough people participated... we can take care of it on the 2019-10-22 call, just show people the issue, tell people that the decision will be final at the end of the call, so speak now before it's too late... then go with where we are at the end of the call..

@TallTed

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@TallTed TallTed commented Oct 21, 2019

@msporny @iherman -- If not enough people participated here, I would think the question should be announced on the WG mailing list (which probably should have been done already), with a date-certain for the decision, and a request for active participation (perhaps adding a "don't care"/abstain option, so as to be clear that people have seen the question, and are actively choosing not to voice an opinion). Votes may then be submitted via messages to the mailing list, +1/-1 here, or proxy...

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 21, 2019

If not enough people participated here, I would think the question should be announced on the WG mailing list

Yes, in hindsight, probably should've done that (although, there is a part of me that is saying "we do our work in Github, not on the mailing list... so people should be subscribed to this repo and paying attention to Github")... was trying to go for something lighter weight from a process perspective.

We have lots of people on the weekly calls -- 20+ -- that's enough of a sample set to make me feel comfortable. After all, we're just gathering data for the Chairs/Staff to make the final decision.

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 22, 2019

Short name: didy-mc-didface
URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/didy-mc-didface/

Requested by the community.

@kdenhartog-sybil1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@kdenhartog-sybil1 kdenhartog-sybil1 commented Oct 22, 2019

+1 from @kdenhartog sybil for didy-mc-didface

@kimdhamilton

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@kimdhamilton kimdhamilton commented Oct 22, 2019

bike shedding rule 3 appears to be in conflict with the will of the people

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@msporny msporny commented Oct 27, 2019

We've had at least 16 people participating in this thread, group has been notified twice (via the call, and via the mailing list) to participate. We've had enough participation to provide input to the Chairs and Staff.

The option that gained the most support is did-core followed closely behind by didy-mc-didface.

@iherman, @brentzundel, and @burnburn -- please rename this repo to did-core. I will put the modifications into the fpwd PR to update the spec to match the new short name.

msporny added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 27, 2019
@burnburn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@burnburn burnburn commented Oct 28, 2019

As chair I a) agree that this is group consensus, and b) recommend we proceed with this name. did-core it is.

@iherman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@iherman iherman commented Oct 28, 2019

@iherman, @brentzundel, and @burnburn -- please rename this repo to did-core. I will put the modifications into the fpwd PR to update the spec to match the new short name.

Done.

I propose to close this issue.

@brentzundel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@brentzundel brentzundel commented Oct 28, 2019

Closing, as a short name has been selected and the necessary changes have been made.

msporny added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 29, 2019
msporny added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 29, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
8 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.