The W3C Credentials Community Group

Verifiable Claims and Digital Verification

Go Back

Credentials CG Telecon

Minutes for 2021-01-06

Heather Vescent, Wayne Chang, Kim Hamilton Duffy
Manu Sporny, Charles E. Lehner
Heather Vescent, Mike Prorock, Charles E. Lehner, Amy Guy, Brian Munz, Wayne Chang, Kerri Lemoie, Adrian Gropper, Taylor Kendall, Dmitri Zagidulin, Manu Sporny, Ryan Grant, Phil Archer, Juan Caballero, Joe Andrieu, Erica Connell, Ted Thibodeau, Kaliya Young
Audio Log
<mprorock> happy new year @manu
<manu_sporny> happy new year @mprorock ... all! :)
Heather Vescent: Hi all, welcome to a new year call! [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent: We're going to focus on the upcoming election on the call today -- some action items. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
<manu> heathervescent goes over the IPR agreement announcements.
Heather Vescent: Note that some people hadn't joined CCG yet, signed IPR agreement, please become official member of CCG to vote in election. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent: Minutes are posted on our website [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny is scribing.
Heather Vescent: I updated all of the old meeting notes and audio - everything should be up to date now.
Heather Vescent: We use chat -- Jitsi chat or IRC is fine.
Heather Vescent: In IRC -- type q+ to add yourself to the queue, you can add a note, example: "q+ to talk about cats"
Heather Vescent: We will acknowledge you to speak, please be brief so others can speak, you can always q+ again. This meeting is held by voice, not IRC, offtopic conversation is subject to deletion from the record.
Heather Vescent: Any volunteers for scribe?
<rhiaro> I encourage anyone who hasn't done it before to try scribing, you don't have to be perfect and any typos will be corrected by others!
Charles E. Lehner is scribing.
Heather Vescent: Time to do intros and reintros
... anyone on call to do intro/reintro. can q or pipe up
Charles E. Lehner: Hi Charles Lehner, working at Spruce now. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Heather Vescent: Anyone else?
Heather Vescent: Let's move on then. announcements and reminders
Heather Vescent: Announcements:
Heather Vescent: Only one comin up recently is thoughtful biometrics workshop that kaliya has mentioned.
Is kaliya on call, or anyone want to mention to speak to that? juan
<jimstclair> Sorry, where is the link for the IPR? Not sure I signed
Juan Caballero: Knows url, that's it
Heather Vescent: Workshop coming up. interesting recently, my interest in diversity and inclusion
... w3c blended thie rd&i group with positive work environ work group. announced office hours
... connect with people from that list
... they are interesting and wonderful people
Manu Sporny: That was interesting, didnt know it happened. what to expect during office hours?
Heather Vescent: Not sure, to be honest. is your question on what led to the open office hours, or the blending of the 2 groups?
Manu Sporny: General curiosity. who should show up?
... people running WGs/CGs? or CG members dealing with diversity challenges?
... who is the intended audience?
Heather Vescent: Good question, don't know as not very involved with that
Heather Vescent: May be blunt at times, will try to be more delicate. when became co-chair, wanted to have more blend or relationship between CCG and D&I group
... spent time doing resarch early on to not lean on POCs/minorities
... concensus structure of the W3C is not necessarily the best structure for oaddressing inherent biases in the organization.
... i found that group to be interesting and useful. but ultimately decided not a great resource for me & CCG to increase D&I in this comm. but continue watching.
<cel> ... why blended: two co-chairs of d&i group getting ready to step down. leadership overhead -> didn't seem like leadership would step up
... rather than have the CG go away, it was blended into the positive work environment group
... part of this is a bit of an experiment to see how it works, how the W3C can have a moore positive work environment. part of the inclusion. a prereq for recruiting a diverse community
... otherwise have a cycrle - brign in diverse people viewpoints, they get chewed up and spit out
... seeming like they have a problem. a well-documented cycle
.. Makes sense to put them together. W3c is still trying to figure out where it's power is and how to use it
... chairs had discussion
... tried to find practical actions that we could apply in the CCG that would support
.. Does that answer
Manu Sporny: Yes
Heather Vescent: Talk to folks on office hours. or with me offline - i can tell you the different folks i've spoken to and direction for that. but it's a long haul as we are up against biases we may not be aware of
Heather Vescent: Rhiaro has been to meetings
Amy Guy: Office hours intended for people in underrepresented communitires who want to get incolved in CCG
Heather Vescent: We are going to go through community issues. have a full slate. normally pick 2-3 but have a grouping now
Heather Vescent: My brain works in buckets. put different topic ideas in different buckets for what they make sense in.
First few issues 174 173, 172, 164, more later - all adjustments proposed to CCG work item process
... these are proposed CCG-specific requirements for new work items.
Heather Vescent: 173, 174, 172: These were hidden on another thread in order to clean up and streamline and not have scope creep on these issues
... did clean up to close some and have specific work items for other things
... starting at top. #174
Heather Vescent: #174: Https://
... 172,173,174: initiated from me based on a previous comment. some best preactices seen in other communities and used myself to increase diversity, increase leadership, do peer mentoring
... 174: the idea is peer leadership. tech perspective: has peer programming - experienced and less-experienced developer team up
... used in leadership situations. not necessarily mentor-mentee, really meant that the younger (not necessarily age - less experienced with leadership and wants more) - do succession training, leadership training
... done in professional and non-professional environments with success
... brought up as best practice
... for work items
<manu_sporny> only way the community can scale beyond where it is now.
... next step: create PR to add to work item process. but before, like a consensus-type attitute. want to bring up and see if anyone wanted to comment or had issues to discuss
... add to q if you have comments
... don't see any. ifi have comments later, please add to GH. otherwise will add as PR
Heather Vescent: 173: Https://
... #173. have discussed before. addition of
... Heilmeier Questions
<rgrant> i'd like to offer quiet support for the idea of mentoring.
... came across during first gov contract 7 years ago. good process to go through, sit and understand what doing, explain to other people
... have been using for some more recent work items towards end of year. based on feedback, initial set of questions about 13 - not a lot of overhead - to make work item proposers think more deeply about it
Adrian Gropper: Is discussion and acceptance of work items going to be a rolling process
Heather Vescent: Can be proposed by anyone in CCG. needs to have 2 people from CCG be co-owners. if no issue by anyone in CCG, can move forward in CCG as work item
... chairs set up operations in work item repo. can get involved, but it can be hands-off
Adrian Gropper: Is there an existing queue of work items?
Heather Vescent: Are youa sking for a list of current work items?
Adrian Gropper: Yes
Adrian Gropper: Before i go through the trouble of adding to an already interesting queue, i would like to know
Heather Vescent: Here is the list. we also have in github itself
... we have a list of the work items here:
... one thing on my TODO since have been chair: this list of work items is not fully updated
... it includes a lot of our active ones but many inactive ones.
... i love to clean up messes. technical documentation messes
... want to review, clean up. some have not any work done in several years.
... we wanted to, in very friendly manner, check in with the work item owners
... may archive them.
Manu Sporny: Overall, questions are good because they help someone proposing a new work item think more deeply about it. i have some concern about timelines
... understand if no progress, should close down. some specs where we detectd that have been shutdown.
... which is good in some cases. concerned about things like the HTTP signature spec. took 7 years, 6 years before started being used seriously. now it's in the HTTP WG. work started here, took a long time to mature.
Joe Andrieu: +1 To incubating without deadline pressure.
... i don't know what the thought process is when it comes to work items like that that might take some time. Linked Data signatures another example. thoughts? eval process?
Ryan Grant: +1 For incubation
Wayne Chang: What is really the keepalive - ping-pong to keep a work item alive?
... [lost audio]
... if work item owner is active and responsive, that's a pretty good baseline
... unless someone feels a string reason for the work item to not exist
Heather Vescent: The idea is for us to do an audit of the work items
Phil Archer: +1 On Manu's concern. Things that "are important" need to have a longer 'time to live'. Progress isn't always linear.
... it's about checking in with the work items that have not had any work items. thought process: check in, see if there is still interest in working on them.
... if there is, will give them time to spin back up. if not, that's when we would archive it.
... chairs will not archive without touching base with the owners
... why we have not done it yet. understanding the process to check in. with each work item. understanding the history
... making sure not mistakenly sweeping under the rug archiving
Heather Vescent: Our role is to support you guys doing really cool work items. what we want to see happening in 2021.
... want to support a diversity of interesting work items. not just this group but in relation to other W3C groups, DIF, and other communities.
... closing out #173. anyone else have questions? also welcome to comment on the GH item.
Wayne Chang: Comment: orie had similar comment: can figure out how to compress into 3-5 questions to cover 80% of scope. may be less intimidating
... for work item creators. my suggestion
<manu_sporny> Like, "my answers may be used as a reason to not start the work"
Heather Vescent: I did boil it down from 13 to 8. would like to more, if have suggestions on how without losing too much of them, feel free to take a crack at it
<manu_sporny> but I don't think that's the intent of the questions
Heather Vescent: Moving onto the next item. #172
Heather Vescent: #172: Https://
Ryan Grant: I propose we remove the "risks" or reword it to address downsides for Internet users. The risks to W3C participants are always the same: spent work hours.
... the reason this came up: in the process of the infrastructure task force / as the discussion of it was coming up, chairs were approached for desire to have another task force, realized did not have documentation of how to create a task force
... another task force issue: #164
Heather Vescent: #164: Https://
Heather Vescent: These both address task force. 164: documentation regarding task force. never had documentation for it before, trying to put in place.
... part of requirement is #172 requiring to have a charter.
... chairs have put together draft guidelines ^
... have had a lot of different folks make comments. would like us to have discussion about this. if have concerns or questions ...
... not perfect, may iterate
... may be rolled into work item process or kept separate
Wayne Chang: Commentary on how task force should evolve forward
... opportunity for anyone in community
... whether OCAPs as on mailing list, or Verificable Requests, opportunity to have meetings
... with end-goal in mind
... we as chairs and infrastructure maintainers would like to allow anyone to spawn their own notes, meetings, sessions
.... figure how to provide infra for folks wanting to run task forces and focus on topic at hand
... so task forces can spawn in and out of existence, cover ground quickly
Heather Vescent: Task forces being able to accept financial resources to pay for things. discussion happening on issue
... in past have not had accepting of financial resources for a task force. but are exploring for infra task force. others have made request and we were not ready in the past
... trying to set up infrastructure and/or best practices to support that in the future
Heather Vescent: Comments so far look fine to me
... unless anyone has issue, i have no issue with the comments made in the document.
... i move to propose that we add this to the CCG work item process, or however the chairs decide it needs to be dovetailed with that.
... then cllose 172, 164
... move onto next one, code of conduct in W3C repos.
Heather Vescent: #169: Https://
... asking Brian_Munz
Brian Munz: Pretty simple. navigating in repos. noticed no code of conduct
... w3c has one in their larger community repo
Brian Munz: My question: would be a good idea to have a code of conduct in repos
Brian Munz: Can use one that already exists
Heather Vescent: Seems like fine request to me. reviewing the license that we just updated
... not sure if the CoC is mentioned. wondering if we can add it in the license. just a thought.
Manu Sporny: +1 To idea. and to reusing the w3c code of ethics and professional conduct
... enormous amount of work went into it over years. really good, we use it for our company. we think it hits the right balance.
... the WGs already include that.
Mike Prorock: +1 Refernce and adhere to top level
... it might be useful to look at... i think DID WG does this ... may reference it the same way if group likes
Heather Vescent: Making note on the issue.
... add to q if have comments.
Ryan Grant: +1
Heather Vescent: Brian_Munz does that work for you
Brian Munz: Yes. question:
... if we've arrived at using the existing one, how do we standardize the representation of it within the repos?
Heather Vescent: How would you expect it to be done?
... is it in the hierarchy of the overall CCG, or in the individual work item repo?
Brian Munz: My question. looking at what large orgs do: it seems to be in their template. but good to have in the individual ones.
Taylor Kendall: We have referenced this as well and it's very well done. +1
Mike Prorock: Think standardizing a reference from readme to CoC, i think manu hit the nail on the head. broad CCG reference out. also good for individual projects: link to from the readme, so it is clear and standardized. could potentially solve problems later, remove ability for people to say "i didn't know"
Manu Sporny: Building off what mike said, i believe we have a new project github template that people can click on. you can include it in that.
... +1 on reducing work for everyone to remember
Heather Vescent: Updating the comment with: we can use the existing for best practice, reference and link, add to new work item template
... will look into how the working groups do this.
... if anyone comes across it, can pop it in the issue
... addressed question?
Brian Munz: Yes
Heather Vescent: Thanks
... next: infrastructure task force
Heather Vescent: #168: Infrastructure Task Force:
Wayne Chang: Can give context. lot of stuff going on under the hood to keep gears turning for CCG. including jitsi, recordings, notes, other processes
... over time, a lot of great community members have been stepping up and helping extensively. kudos to everyone involved
... but happening informally. more work items have reliance on CCG, find appropriate to add transparency.
... propose to stipulate what job is to be done, have open ways to communicate and be informed
... for infrastructure. e.g. npm repository
... create accountability
... task force should have goal in mind, as Ted mentioned. may make part of the CCG as a committee.
... kim requested we write a charter . did, got contributions. revisions.
... scope is defined in the issue and in the charter.
... linked. description of the scope, deliverables. how to participate - any ccg member.
... not everyone will have secret API keys. will be accountable to CCG.
... figuring out the community governance element. how to make sure it will be serving the CCG as much as possible, have full alignment, but not have to have yes/no on every question
... propose: can have first say, but must disclose to mailing list
... chairs to exercise judgment on what must be disclosed. anyone may designate an item as subject to approval
... in event of strong objections. if 2 or more community members object, escalate to voting. as in chair elections
... add ultimate accountability to community.
... weeks of discussion, what is acceptable, appropriate. think we have arrived at stable space.
... want to receive additional feedback here or on ML.
... if no objects, can move to ratify this week.
... add to q for comments/feedback
Heather Vescent: Thanks for your work on this work item
Wayne Chang: Kudos to amy for bringing up Open Collective. a way to transparently manage funds - for intrastructure. so everyone can see what the money is spent on.
... $2000 committed for this use case.
... if anyone else has contributions in mind, or ways to propose how to handle finances, happy to receive email
Heather Vescent: #136: Https://
Heather Vescent: Apologies about time. discuss #136
... learnings from last election that we are addressing in the charter.
... wayne to run. worked with victoria
Wayne Chang: How do we have a nice aggreeable election process that is legitimate and everyone can get onboard with. another google doc
... introduce approval voting: select all the options you approve of. we pick the most-approved options.
... how do we have a better stipulation on what constitutes voting membership.
... what should be requirements for ccg members to vote in chair elections?
... in doc proposed 6 months instead of 3
... if folks have ideas, invite commentary: add to q or on the thread.
... will continue to address items in charter this week. give final call for reviewer feedback
<dmitriz> what's the functional/game theory difference between approval voting, versus ranked voting?
... without strong objections, will attempt to make the amendment.
Heather Vescent: We the chairs would like any issues to these brought up ASAP. need to have agreement before can move on election.
Dmitri Zagidulin: Question: since wayne mentioned approval voting: what's the functional difference between approval voting and ranked voting - ranked choice runnoff?
Wayne Chang: Need to get back to you. can ask on thread
Heather Vescent: Seen comments on charter amendment. do we need to leave this open for a week? if no other issues can accept changes and move forward?
Manu Sporny: +1 To that. think it's fine. have reviewed the language, looks fine to me. just concerned about amount of work on chairs to identify eligible voting members. understand why, concerned about extra work for chairs. hopefully you have a fairly automated way. feels like something there could be tooling for
Wayne Chang: Agree. opportunity for more tooling. structured on github already. with infrastructure task force taking load off, chairs could be freed up to build tooling for or automate more.
Ryan Grant: Here is on voting: All voting methods can exhibit problems, but their frequency and severity is particularly pronounced with RCV. RCV also makes it so you can sometimes harm a candidate by ranking them better and help a candidate by ranking them worse. Again, there’s the spoiler issue. There’s also RCV’s squeezing out of moderates even when they’re clearly the best winner.
Heather Vescent: A concern from the last election
Wayne Chang: What does 6 month look like, what do meaningful contributions look like
... how to deliver value
... how to measure contributions
Heather Vescent: Sounds like we may barely get this approved. may need an additional week to finalize text
Wayne Chang: Will try to get done this week, put in front of community. item has been outstanding for weeks now. hopefuly wrap up for chair election
Heather Vescent: Chair election schedule - waiting for this part to wrap up before moving forward
Heather Vescent: Chairs put together job description
... if thinking of running, please reach out
... if want to get leadership experience or get involved, good opportunity
... existing chairs, espeically kim have done a great job automating things
... chairs will not be required to do as much operational infrastructure stuff. to focus on other things
Ted Thibodeau: That ElectionScience article has a definite bias toward approval voting. In the spirit of equal bias -- -- and of (on skim, anyway) less bias --
... opportunity if you want to start an initiative
... thank you
Wayne Chang: Big things coming in 2021
<tayken> Thanks all! Happy 21
... macro comment: big initiative: reduce requreiment that chairs have to play devops / support staff. focus on higher-level tasks. not that chairs shouldn't