Traceability Vocabulary Telecon
Minutes for 2021-04-13
Manu Sporny is scribing.
Topic: Process for IPR-protected CCG Meetings
<heathervescent> sorry, I guess I am going to join this and listen.
<orie> same, eager to see progress
<orie> I don't think we "all want the same thing"... evidenced by the thread
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... this call is what people were asking for
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... this kind of public call is the way forward, and calls like this will get us back on track here
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... i had to rearrange my day and delay other (standards) work to be here, and many people who should be aren't
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... i think a markdown or a long-open PR is a way of parallel/independent work without signaling a hostile takeover
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... i don't think this group of companies is trying to do an endrun around consensus, but a fork (and the SVIP aspect) aren't helping the optics of consensus being endrun around
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... i find it hard to talk about the API itself on this call without more people here
<mprorock> so what is the alternate path?
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... to run queue
Thing about ESSIF -- verifier needs, etc.
Mahmoud: What I think would not be helpful is to continue the conversation on whether we should split or go back into VC HTTP API -- I believe there are four or five that want to speak on that -- rest of this call, what would we like to do next week. To that point, Juan and Spherity have made a wonderful use case document... it needs some comments, changes, I have made some comments... lot of work to be done there.
Mahmoud: What I'm seeing that's missing from VC HTTP API -- what it is, what it's going to be -- fork for traceability API -- everyone wants it -- idea of if we can't agree on foundational principles, then nothing good is going to done, we're going to return to gridlock... agree on use cases, actual requirements, then move on requirements.
Both work items in parallel.
<orie> great, we're happy to help on both sides of the problem
<orie> speaking for Transmute
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> /me and boy does it happen int he Web Advertising group...
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> /me adtech is like 100% hostile takeovers haha
<orie> happy to keep talking about it, as long as we are not blocked
<orie> we're eager to see actual work on the vc http api... obviously for supply chain traceability we want to keep those APIs together... based on our use case.
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> 3 chairs
<orie> Transmute is in all the processes
<orie> we are not saying we won't help the vc http api grow up
<orie> we are saying we want to work on other issues in parallel
Here... supply chain side of the world -- companies we're involved with -- commercial market, we have a need to demonstrate interop with them as customers, do that with open specs, trace vocab exists for that reason.
Mrprorock: I'm very open -- not set on anything specific -- need something to point to w/ customers, whatever gets us to that path quickest is what I'm going to back.
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> /me straw man if anyone wants to help me PR in something for the UCR of V-H-A:
<heathervescent> Could we do a VC HTTP API knowledge transfer to broaden what it covers to a broader audience in the community?
<heathervescent> *broaden who knows
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... you'll need to merge this with the other work, and earlier is better for the literal and figurative merge conflicts that arise naturally from that
<orie> I'd rather see objections to something that works, than to something that does not.
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... i am putting some resources into advancing v-h-a to pay forward future work
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... that might come of parallel efforts
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> ... i'm hearing everyone here could be happy
<orie> we have fairly low confidence in the probability that the vc http api will change / move fast enough.
<heathervescent> Manu - were you talking about the CCG call or another one?
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> oh right duh
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> yes let's all do that!
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> i can send an agenda for THIS time
<heathervescent> Can I ask a dumb question, what is this meeting?
<orie> traceability vocab is already a work item
<orie> its just a work item
<orie> with folks trying to get stuff done
<orie> keep adding meetings until no progress can be made?
<orie> We actually tried to do our contributions on github
<orie> because it has a version control system built in
<orie> easier to audit
<orie> lets start from scratch!
<orie> lol jk
<orie> yeah lol
<heathervescent> Here I am, VOR (Voice of Reason)
<orie> I will say that calls are never the time to be inclusive of different timezones
<orie> there is a reason async work in github is critical to inclusion
<heathervescent> How can I as a chair, or the CCG 101 group assist you in this?
<mprorock> at this time
<orie> Take the IIW mindset
<orie> You are where you need to be
<heathervescent> well.... not always Orie
<orie> I am not here to make you a believer Manu, what you choose to believe is your own businessess
<heathervescent> Manu - what if we have semi-regular updates to the main ccg call?
<orie> setup a regular call for the vc http api
<orie> and I will be happy to attend
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> i don't think i'm cut out to run meetings in this mode
<orie> this call isn't about the vc http api anymore, we are focused on traceability... I am sure you wouldn't say folks need to attend every call that might cover LD Proofs
<orie> You should setup a call
<orie> and invite folks to it
<orie> like we did for this
<heathervescent> YOu want to do these in the CCG call slot?
<mprorock> 1 have a hard stop
<orie> ehh, i would guess the vc http api is not relevant to the entire CCG....
<mprorock> apologies all, and thank you for the time
<orie> should have its own topic call time
<heathervescent> Lets do the CCG VC HTTP API call next week and see where that goes.
<orie> ^ yep
<orie> traceability isn't just vc http api.... its got its own issues.
<heathervescent> And it is at this call regularily?
<heathervescent> Can you do the intro next week? or you need more time?
<orie> we need this to eventually be more EU friendly
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> apologies for the crap email
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> that was all me
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> great meeting
<juan_(spherity_gmbh)> sorry gotta drop
<mahmoud> Thanks everyone
<heathervescent> happy to run you through the process ofr minutesm as well.