<orie> sounds like expectations should be changed regarding what chairs are responsible for doing.
<heather_vescent> Orie q+
<orie> DIF has staff I think.
Wayne_Chang: It is getting to be a lot of workload, lots of work items, even if we had 3rd co-chair, would it be enough? Work items accountable? I keep thinking if it's possible to have more dedicated resource on behalf of CG, then we need budget, responsibilities, governance, CCG need it's own entity? Having a pair of hands that could help, paid obligation, explicit support of W3C staff, show up to meetings, notes, recordings... that's been hinging on ✪
The Chairs, as we have more work items, more meetings, task forces, might be easier for someone good at this to work on this like W3C staff. ✪
<orie> does OIDF / TOIP / IETF have staff?
<heather_vescent> ... maybe we shouldn't do as good of a job as we are right now. Maybe everyone should take a step back and see if things fall over.
<heather_vescent> ... some things we can't slip, we need minutes and notes, this is a fundamental protection for the community.
<wayne_chang> TOIP has staff
<heather_vescent> ... but coordinating things, takes a lot of work and is largely unseen.
<wayne_chang> IETF has.....people whose employer allows it to be part of their job
Mrporock: That might get more interest -- functional? ✪
Wayne_Chang: Work is anywhere from 2-6 hours a week, a lot of it is reading... would spend more time... if I had more time would spend more time on speakers, want to ask community on speakers, last few weeks 2-4 hours. ✪
<orie> yikes, if we are going to turn this call into a slander session.
<orie> I don't see this call doing anything useful for us.
Wayne_Chang: No need to call out people on a call, happy to discuss in a separate call. ✪
<mprorock> If you can locate that responsibility/role doc that would be awesome
<heather_vescent> ... we have six different groups, all of them are helpful, but if we had to converge on a big topic, what would it be?
<dmitri_z> authorization :)
<cel> is there a link to concerns of BC folks mentioned by identitywoman?
<identitywoman> that is what i'm talking about.
<heather_vescent> ... what we (the company) have seen, is companies using VC, Verifiable Credentials, it's got a good brand, a number of companies external to this community, in ways that are not aligned at all for the technology to be, and they aren't even using the technology (we developed here) under the scenes.
<heather_vescent> ... it would be good to make a statement, like the way this is constructed, is problematic, because of [specifics] and here are concerns.
<heather_vescent> ... I think the working groups should be able to say stuff like that.
<heather_vescent> ... and people will listen, if we can agree to the statements.
<heather_vescent> ... writing a paper is something that will (likely) fail. But a paragraph. +1 to Kaliya for the community to say things like this in an official capacity.
<heather_vescent> ... also curious about all this plumbing that we assume exists (e.g. LDS) but this community is busy, but has not been involved in the 300 emails that have changed hands in the semantic web group.
<identitywoman> (I'm working on a white paper about the issues with QR codes at ToIP) - would be great to have a paragraph about the issues from CCG
<kim> we can make it easier on ourselves by defining conformance criteria and getting ahead of the messaging; being more precise with "Verifiable Credential"
<heather_vescent> ... what people are seeing there, is a disinterest from teh CCG because we (the CCG) is not there participating. So commenting about what is going on in the market, (Health Record) but I feel like we are tripping over some fundamentals. We are assuming some tech will be formalized. (Being a little hyperbolic.) BUt people are not seeing this community's thoughts about this. And this is a problem, because we have a big stake in that work succeeding. There may be some fundamental work that we need to do (e.g. LDS).
<kezike> Right Kim, similarly I was going to suggest encouraging implementation of vc-http-api as vetting mechanism via the test suite conformance
<identitywoman> sorry - I forgot we have dates for the special topics IIWs July 22nd for UX/UI in SSI and August 4th for the Business of SSI.