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
Comments
Short name: 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. |
Short name: 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. |
Short name: 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. |
Short name: 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. |
Short name: This is an attempt to model the name after CSS Level 1. |
Can we declare victory for https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ ? (Comment edited, I originally took the wrong winner:-( |
Did you mean https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/ ? |
@dlongley Sorry. Indeed; edited the comment |
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.. |
@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, |
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. |
Short name: Requested by the community. |
+1 from @kdenhartog sybil for |
bike shedding rule 3 appears to be in conflict with the will of the people |
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 @iherman, @brentzundel, and @burnburn -- please rename this repo to |
As chair I a) agree that this is group consensus, and b) recommend we proceed with this name. |
Done. I propose to close this issue. |
Closing, as a short name has been selected and the necessary changes have been made. |
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:
didy-mc-didface
short name scenarios.Ready... GO!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: