[wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal #448

pchampin · 2023-09-24T21:44:22Z

This PR aims to takes account most of the remarks made during the AC review and the TPAC discussions.

addresses - #427 (DID resolution on REC track) - #431 (remove DID methods) - #434 (now moot, as DID methods have been removed)

2023/did-wg.html

decentralgabe

Block/TBD is supportive of these changes

2023/did-wg.html

Co-authored-by: Ivan Herman <[email protected]>

2023/did-wg.html

rxgrant · 2023-10-29T19:46:22Z

2023/did-wg.html

-Working Drafts for DID Resolution or DID URL Dereferencing, or of DID Method
-Specifications. Any new documents intended for Recommendation will be
-limited to the Working Draft maturity level.
+The Working Group may also publish new Working Group Notes.


Suggested change

The Working Group may also publish new Working Group Notes.

Remove the Notes. The working group will not publish any new notes. See also change in "Out of Scope" section.

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.

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.

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.

@brentzundel

It would formally put out of scope any updates to the DID Method Rubric, DID Use Cases, DID Implementation Guide, etc.

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.

@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.

unresolving this conversation, as I had misunderstood @rxgrant's comment. My apologies.

Suggested change

The Working Group may also publish new Working Group Notes.

The Working Group may also publish new Working Group Notes. Working Group Notes will not include DID method specifications. The Working Group however welcomes and may support efforts to standardize DID methods in other Working Groups and/or organizations.

@rxgrant and others, how about something like this as an idea?

The Working Group however welcomes and may support efforts to standardize DID methods in other Working Groups and/or organizations.

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!

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).

removed the "dummy DID method" and the "provide evidence of existing DID methods" instead, the "evidence of existing DID methods" is deferred to DID Resolver implementations. Interoperability will be demonstrated by ensuring that resolvers support DID methods in common.

rxgrant

I approve the changes regarding using external DID Methods.

edit: As of November 3rd, DCD does not approve of the charter in its current form, and offers suggestions that make it better.

jandrieu

This looks better, but still need help, especially regarding expectations about consensus.

2023/did-wg.html

jandrieu · 2023-11-07T21:15:19Z

2023/did-wg.html

        </p>
        <p>
-The Working Group will begin working toward a specification for DID Resolution
-and DID URL Dereferencing.
+It is expected that these two goals will be taken by distinct task forces in the WG.


Suggested change

It is expected that these two goals will be taken by distinct task forces in the WG.

It is expected that these two goals will be taken by distinct task forces in the WG.

The Working Group MUST pursue consensus in any task pursued under the name of the working group--whether by Chairs, Editors, or other contributors--including any Notes for publication by the WG and any Charters for a future DID WG.

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.

I have always assumed that this proposed language applies anyway, but I guess it helps to emphasize it, so I'd support this too.

I have always assumed that this proposed language applies anyway

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.

Note that although the email summaries reference the original change proposed by @pchampin , which looks like:

It is expected that these two goals will be taken by distinct task forces in the WG.

the current text under discussion is:

The Working Group MUST pursue consensus in any task pursued under the name of the working group--whether by Chairs, Editors, or other contributors--including any Notes for publication by the WG and any Charters for a future DID WG.

So if you are only reading along in email then you will be misled.

@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?

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.

rxgrant · 2023-11-17T12:12:18Z

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 8:56 AM Pierre-Antoine Champin ***@***.***> wrote: +The Working Group may also publish new Working Group Notes. @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.

Pierre-Antoine, this is too aggressive of a resolution. I referred to "along with my other changes" and continue to object to work that leaves room for Notes that may later attempt to pick winners and losers by publishing documents that involve DID Methods, no matter how perfect of a consensus definition the WG arrives at for work on future Notes. You should instead note the support for limiting the scope of work on Notes, and work on a draft that achieves that.

jyasskin · 2023-11-30T15:19:53Z

2023/did-wg.html

@@ -337,13 +315,17 @@ <h2>Success Criteria</h2>
 more implementations interoperating with each other. In order to advance to
 Proposed Recommendation, each normative specification must have an open
 test suite of every feature defined in the specification.</p>
+
+    <p>In order for <a href="#deliverable-did-resolution">DID Resolution</a> to advance to <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#RecsPR" title="Proposed Recommendation">Proposed Recommendation</a>, it is expected that each of the independant implementations mentioned above support at least two DID methods with an open specification (i.e. a specification that is accessible to all for implementation and deployment). It is also expected that each pair of the independant implementations mentioned above support at least one common DID method with an open specification.</p>


This should set a more specific bar than just "open specification". @cwilso and I suggested over email that it be something like

Suggested change

<p>In order for <a href="#deliverable-did-resolution">DID Resolution</a> to advance to <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#RecsPR" title="Proposed Recommendation">Proposed Recommendation</a>, it is expected that each of the independant implementations mentioned above support at least two DID methods with an open specification (i.e. a specification that is accessible to all for implementation and deployment). It is also expected that each pair of the independant implementations mentioned above support at least one common DID method with an open specification.</p>

<p>In order for <a href="#deliverable-did-resolution">DID Resolution</a> to advance to <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#RecsPR" title="Proposed Recommendation">Proposed Recommendation</a>, it is expected that each of the independant implementations mentioned above support at least two DID methods with open specifications at at least the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot level, or a level with equivalent vetting and patent grants at another standards body. It is also expected that each pair of the independant implementations mentioned above support at least one common DID method with an open specification.</p>

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.

pchampin · 2023-11-30T16:30:00Z

Following @iherman 's suggestion at the end of today's meeting, I merge this PR as is and will make new PRs with the remaining pending modifications.

@peacekeeper

in response to @peacekeeper #448 (comment)

@peacekeeper

in response to @peacekeeper #448 (comment)

@peacekeeper

in response to @peacekeeper #448 (comment)

@rxgrant

* change suggestion by @rxgrant * Alternative proposal by @rxrant in response to @peacekeeper #448 (comment) * should -> must * Update 2023/did-wg.html Co-authored-by: Ivan Herman <[email protected]> * Update 2023/did-wg.html Co-authored-by: Joe Andrieu <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Ivan Herman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Joe Andrieu <[email protected]>

pchampin added 3 commits September 24, 2023 23:09

address #447

bf15703

remove DID methods, and make DID resolution a REC track deliverable

aacf57d

addresses - #427 (DID resolution on REC track) - #431 (remove DID methods) - #434 (now moot, as DID methods have been removed)

add specific exit criteria discussed during TPAC

a34539e

pchampin marked this pull request as draft September 24, 2023 21:57

plehegar changed the title ~~Did wg 2023 team proposal~~ [wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal Sep 25, 2023

plehegar assigned pchampin Sep 25, 2023

pchampin marked this pull request as ready for review September 30, 2023 15:20

iherman reviewed Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

iherman reviewed Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

decentralgabe approved these changes Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

OR13 reviewed Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

OR13 reviewed Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

OR13 reviewed Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Show resolved Hide resolved

OR13 reviewed Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Show resolved Hide resolved

OR13 reviewed Oct 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Show resolved Hide resolved

pchampin and others added 2 commits October 3, 2023 12:37

Update 2023/did-wg.html

9630c30

Co-authored-by: Ivan Herman <[email protected]>

Update 2023/did-wg.html

ca925c4

Co-authored-by: Ivan Herman <[email protected]>

OR13 reviewed Oct 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rephrase the requirement for two independant DID methods

1ecaa35

brentzundel approved these changes Oct 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

typo

70a1458

rxgrant reviewed Oct 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rxgrant suggested changes Oct 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

2023/did-wg.html Show resolved Hide resolved

2023/did-wg.html Show resolved Hide resolved

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pchampin commented Oct 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

2023/did-wg.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rxgrant reviewed Oct 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

rxgrant approved these changes Oct 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

peacekeeper approved these changes Oct 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

iherman mentioned this pull request Nov 1, 2023

[wg/did] Make it explicit that WG agreement is to begin the process of developing DiD Methods #434

Closed

jandrieu suggested changes Nov 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

sideshowbarker force-pushed the gh-pages branch from 06eafd3 to eefe12a Compare November 22, 2023 10:19

Brent Zundel is now an IE

8cc49a2

jyasskin reviewed Nov 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

pchampin merged commit 4078d64 into gh-pages Nov 30, 2023

This was referenced Nov 30, 2023

[wg/did] change suggestion by @jyasskin #466

Merged

[wg/did] change suggestion by @jandrieu #467

Merged

[wg/did] change suggestion by @rxgrant #468

Merged

pchampin added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2023

Alternative proposal by @rxrant

9fd1267

in response to @peacekeeper #448 (comment)

pchampin added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2023

Alternative proposal by @rxrant

b855c3d

in response to @peacekeeper #448 (comment)

pchampin added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2023

Alternative proposal by @rxrant

dead3ea

in response to @peacekeeper #448 (comment)

plehegar deleted the did-wg-2023-team-proposal branch June 25, 2024 21:25

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal #448

[wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal #448

pchampin commented Sep 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

decentralgabe left a comment

rxgrant Oct 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rxgrant Oct 29, 2023

brentzundel Oct 30, 2023

msporny Oct 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rxgrant Oct 31, 2023

pchampin Nov 17, 2023

pchampin Nov 17, 2023

peacekeeper Nov 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rxgrant Nov 30, 2023

rxgrant Nov 30, 2023

rxgrant left a comment •

edited

Loading

jandrieu left a comment

jandrieu Nov 7, 2023

rxgrant Nov 11, 2023

peacekeeper Nov 17, 2023

rxgrant Nov 18, 2023

rxgrant Nov 18, 2023

pchampin Nov 29, 2023

jandrieu Nov 30, 2023

rxgrant commented Nov 17, 2023 via email

jyasskin Nov 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jandrieu Nov 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pchampin commented Nov 30, 2023

	The Working Group may also publish new Working Group Notes.
	The Working Group may also publish new Working Group Notes. Working Group Notes will not include DID method specifications. The Working Group however welcomes and may support efforts to standardize DID methods in other Working Groups and/or organizations.

[wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal #448

[wg/did] Did wg 2023 team proposal #448

Conversation

pchampin commented Sep 24, 2023 • edited Loading

decentralgabe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rxgrant Oct 29, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

msporny Oct 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

peacekeeper Nov 17, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rxgrant left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jandrieu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rxgrant commented Nov 17, 2023 via email

jyasskin Nov 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jandrieu Nov 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pchampin commented Nov 30, 2023

pchampin commented Sep 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rxgrant Oct 29, 2023 •

edited

Loading

msporny Oct 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

peacekeeper Nov 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rxgrant left a comment •

edited

Loading

jyasskin Nov 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jandrieu Nov 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading