Minutes for 2021-09-21
- Introductions and Reintroductions
- Merge Windows
- Renaming VC HTTP API to VC API
- Pull Request 224 - Resolutions in Spec
- Pull Request 226 - RAR and GNAP
- Pull Request 227 - Single Word Change
- Pull Request 228 - Intro to Authz Section
- Pull Request 229 - Forbidden Authorization
- Pull Request 230 - Authorization Delegation
- Pull Request 231 - OAuth 2.0 Bearer Tokens
- Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR.
- Any non-editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR, if it has been open for a minimum of 7 days and change requests have been addressed.
- Rename the VC HTTP API to become the VC API.
- Manu Sporny
- Juan Caballero
- Manu Sporny, Mahmoud Alkhraishi, Juan Caballero, Eric Schuh, Joe Andrieu, Mike Prorock, Justin Richer, Orie Steele, David Chadwick, Kerri Lemoie, Brent Zundel, Brian Richter, Adrian Gropper, Heather Vescent, Dmitri Zagidulin, Marty Reed, Ted Thibodeau, Bob Wyman
- Audio Log
Juan Caballero is scribing.
<mprorock> Whoo hoo!!!! thanks Joe
Topic: Introductions and Reintroductions
<joe_andrieu> Hi Kerri!
<kerri_lemoie> Thanks Manu :)
Topic: Merge Windows
<orie> PROPOSAL 1: Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR.
<orie> PROPOSAL 2: Any none editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR, and its been open without change request for a minimum of 7 days.
PROPOSAL: Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR.
RESOLUTION: Any editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR.
PROPOSAL: Any none editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR, and its been open without change request for a minimum of 7 days.
<brent> I think 7 days is fine, especially in view of the desired iterative process.
<mahmoud> happy 2 or 3
PROPOSAL: Any non-editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR, if it has been open for a minimum of 7 days and change requests have been addressed.
RESOLUTION: Any non-editorial PR can be merged as soon as 2 code owners approve the PR, if it has been open for a minimum of 7 days and change requests have been addressed.
Topic: Renaming VC HTTP API to VC API
No objections raised
PROPOSAL: Rename the VC HTTP API to become the VC API.
RESOLUTION: Rename the VC HTTP API to become the VC API.
<orie> its cool, some browser vendors hide it anyway...
<manu> Just to clarify, the full name of the renamed specification should be "The Verifiable Credential API"
<mprorock> i insist on RPC /s
<justin_richer> why does : vc : turn into :vc: here??
<justin_richer> (jitsie has a flag, fwiw)
Topic: Pull Request 224 - Resolutions in Spec
<orie> please close confusing and outdated PRs.
<mprorock> we can cherry pick good language out to use in other PRs
Topic: Pull Request 226 - RAR and GNAP
<orie> I provided feedback on the PR, but it has not been addressed.
<mprorock> @orie - this is a draft PR - have some of the other PRs covered your comments?
<orie> possibly... Im not against the idea behind his PR...
<orie> But it needs to graduate into a mergeable state.
<orie> Justin is correct
<orie> we can't merge a draft.
Draft status is fine
<justin_richer> I marked it draft so it wouldn't be merged, it would be discussed.
<orie> draft is fine, I won't approve it until it is mergeable and feedback is addressed.
<justin_richer> I suggest "draft" because it has mechanical enforcement
<orie> ^ i think Justin did the right thin.
<justin_richer> I don't care if you label it
<mahmoud> draft is fine
Draft is displayed in faint grey on the list by default
So it technically already displays it... just not in bright colors :D
<orie> its called "request changes"
I think repo admins can bump a PR from or to draft
<justin_richer> we can't
<mprorock> there is a do not merge label in there
<brent> sorry for jumping queue
<justin_richer> labels don't block merge either
<orie> they do in the ccgg
<orie> we just agreed to that...
<mprorock> there is a do not merge label
<orie> you ccan mere over the do not merge label too
<mprorock> we need to trust the editors to read the comments for objections, changes requestd, etc
<brent> on github repos where I have proper access I can convert any PR to draft.
<tallted> draft theoretically means that its author doesn't think it's ready for others to review, it exits draft for others to review, and *then* the merge question comes up.
<justin_richer> moving on is nice
Topic: Pull Request 227 - Single Word Change
Topic: Pull Request 228 - Intro to Authz Section
<justin_richer> as an aside, this group is absolutely killing itself with process, in my opinion
<orie> The same applies to this PR.
<orie> its been open for 10 days, no change requests
<orie> it should be merged immediatly
<orie> please merge it @manu.
<orie> they had 10 days to review it....
<orie> we just agreed to apply that policy.
<orie> just request changes if you want to block the PR... its trivial to do.
<orie> thanks Justin!
<tallted> Multiple open change requests ... and says it's a partial substitute for #226, which also remains open, so what's the actual choice to be made?
<orie> there are no change requests, blocking the PR....
<orie> use the "request for change feature"
<orie> I requested changes
<orie> now it can't be mergged
Topic: Pull Request 229 - Forbidden Authorization
<orie> I have requested changes on this PR.
Topic: Pull Request 230 - Authorization Delegation
<justin_richer> ZCAP and GNAP solve completely different problems, though ...
<orie> a normative statemen in a community draft...
<orie> I suggest approving or requesting changes Adrian and Justin.
<orie> I don't care about your feelings, but would love to see a PR review on this ;)
<orie> ( I do care about your feelings )
<orie> I will request changes
<juan_caballero> david_chadwick: i'm putting a comment in that should --> MAY because in some spec contexts, SHOULDs are interpreted as MUSTS
<orie> I agree with David, and I requested changes.
<orie> it now can't be merged.
Adrian's comment on testing conforms with my understanding
<dmitri_zagidulin> orie: i'd be interested to know why (re should -> MAY), from you
<orie> I don't think anyone SHOULD use GNAP or ZCAPs ; )
Topic: Pull Request 231 - OAuth 2.0 Bearer Tokens
<mprorock> can we accept Ted's changes and merge it?
<orie> Thanks for the change request @TallTed!
<orie> Justin, try using the "PR Review feature" of GitHub : )
<orie> I learned from the best
<mprorock> this call was all snark