Manu Sporny: As many know Google/Apple/Mozilla objected to DID Core formally. this led to lots of press and lots of twitter musings on motivations. We have had report on community member violating code of ethics, specifically harassment of mozilla reps based on positions they have taken. This is NOT acceptable behaviour. I dont think people meant the way your actions came across, but reminder when amplified across the number of people, so please when you engage and i suggest you do be overtly polite. Your comments may be taken in the worst possible way even if you didn't as tone doesn't translate over the internet. Please take a look at the link above for some tips. it can help you think of best way to engage ✪
Mike Prorock: Sentiment Echoed. Next Item is a work item review. As micheal herman is not here we will punt it. ✪
Mike Prorock: +1 Heather - getting some hands on help is always welcome ✪
Heather Vescent: Still in process of turning the approved Work items into approved Work items, if interested in helping or reviewing, please reach out. hoping to turn it into repos by EOW ✪
Heather Vescent: I have a list and will try to talk about a few items and have more people chime in. ✪
...: some with the interop out of germany. I know Tim Bouma's Project is doing interop, the Evernym folks presented as well, about showing interop between the Evernym system and using the W3C DID standard.
...: this is where i wanted to talk about the many ecosystems we have the DIF W3C trust over IP, etc etc and many standards orgs, and where are we going to be having the conversations and how will all these orgs be working together? Some are more technical and some are looking to bridge gap between tech and accessibility and so my takeaway is that i think its naive and a dream to think that all these communities would work together. I would love for them to do that but ima realist and the incentives are different and misaligned and that diversity is important. I think rather than try and collect everyone under a tent, and that while ideal in a certain way I think we're naive if we think we can be successful at it. Curious on other peoples thoughts on this whole idea of interop and ecosystems.
Heather Vescent: +1 To this is normal to have so many groups ✪
Manu Sporny: I do think there's lots of truth to what you said, we'll never get everyone to one interoperability initiative or bubble. Each of these orgs have different priorities and this doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the best. Get as broad interop as we possibly can and keep lines of communication as open as possible between these programs. ✪
Mike Prorock: I agree, and i think there's definite goals theres the add-age, you start with four standards and get a fifth. ✪
Juan: I was going to say lately the convo in dif interop and DIF generally has focused alot on breaking interop targets down to smaller pieces and larger pieces at the same time. Starting to think about interop across different targets and priorities ✪
...: Changing it to be across different Topic, if you want people in the room who know did:comm and presentation exchange and jwt based systems today. I don't think there's a meta-interop worth doing. If you want to prioritize having people who know X or Y i think theres a different place for it
<mprorock> interop around definite use cases, and sometimes industry verticals can be very helpful - thought sometimes that means working with the big guys if you want to get something broadly adopted, and sometimes that can be difficult for a variety of reasons
<identitywoman> woopwoop WACI-PEx
...: would recommend looking into the WACI-PEX group
<identitywoman> came out of IIW 32 done by IIW 33!!!
...: even when i cochaired that group, and it was aimed at certain targets and product roadmaps or goals.
Agropper: I have the benefit of a huge experience with regulatory capture and interop and standards and trust framework due to my career, and the work we are doing here has huge human rights implications which are second to none, which are not being addressed. I think the community, generally, is making a huge mistake by not highlighting these human rights issues and regulatory capture issues, because i think we have too much at stake in non-tech ways to pretend this is just about crypto ✪
Juan Caballero: +1 To manu, a google doc could be a great start to a CCG work item that helps create a home for those issues! ✪
Mike Prorock: Acknowledged and agreed as a general principle ✪
Manu Sporny: I think we as a community have not done a good job about writing about it, so i encourage anyone who thinks we can do better to open a google doc or something to share with others. DID: core for example had objectors and we had nothing to point to even if we had considered it for a long time. I expect same issue for human rights will pop up. I suggest people most passionate about to write down their thoughts so they're reference-able ✪
Mike Prorock: I know many of us are juggling many roles that affect our companies and these are important issues, and do need definite wokr done aroudn them ✪
Agropper_: saying a google doc would surface is not what im saying per se, I was referring to heathers IIW comments. There needs to be a concerted effort maybe by the chairs to bring the various interop issues into one place, if that is CCG then it can become a work item of some sort. Right now its scattered. ✪
Manu Sporny: +1 To what Mike just said, the only way things get done here is when people step up to do the work. ✪
Mike Prorock: +1 Ted - interest group etc is probably right venue - look forward to your comments ✪
<orie> I'm pretty sure standards is 99% suggesting work for other folks to do sadly... but only people who do work, actually move the standard forward :)
Manu Sporny: +1 To what Heather is saying wrt. do-ocracy. ✪
<manu_sporny> Also, the Chairs aren't Interoperability Gods, as much as I wish that were true. :P
Heather Vescent: Just want to put support to manus suggestion to create a work item to address these things, best idea is first to write about it. Suggest going for DO-oracy ✪
<mprorock> lol @manu - wouldn't that be nice
<agropper_> Where does leadership come from in CCG?
<manu_sporny> I think the answer is "not only from the Chairs"
...: i don't have the energy or motivation to rally those in a volunteer role. maybe DHS or someone can make money on the table to make it happen to make them cooperate, but without some kind of focused incentive, i just don't have lots of faith. Despite how much i love the idea
<heather_vescent> +100 do not volunteer anyone to anyone.
<agropper_> "ethics police" ?
<mprorock> From the CCG Charter - what we are scoped to work on: "The mission of the W3C Credentials Community Group is to explore the creation, storage, presentation, verification, and user control of credentials."
<mprorock> continuing quote: "In general, the topics that are “in scope” include anything related to enabling interoperable credentials on the Web."
Ted Thibodeau: Do not volunteer anyone else to do something, people get resentful. The groups were in here and elsewhere, are all technically focused we are not the ethics police in any way shape or form. I don't think it'll grab great footholds, to change explicit chartered groups to something different before you go back to your existing work. You're asking for policing ethics. Which adheres to your ethics which may or may not be what other peoples ethics. Creating of groups that focus on ethics or other peoples ethics. There are doctors who don't practice as doctors as they look into ethics of treatment patterns or patient pools etc etc. There are concerns there there are other people who carry the ethics baton and suggest that it would be a good idea if every doctor gave an hour a week of pro bono treatment etc. ✪
Ted Thibodeau: +1 To enabling interoperable credentials as inherently ethical [scribe assist by Ryan Grant] ✪
Manu Sporny: +1 To what Ted is saying ... it's resonating deeply with me. ✪
...: it is frustrating to me to hear the tech i am working on is ethically lacking, that the work i am doing is ethically lacking and the effor i am doing is lacking. I see enabling interoperability as quite ethical
Heather Vescent: +1 Enabling interop is ethical. ✪
...: it opens sphere to people who couldn't afford the access to the bigger things. this is all ethical to me, you may disagree and think otherwise. if you think the W3 is unethical or the CCG is unethical there are paths to resolve that, thats where this stuff should go
<by_caballero> open standards are more ethical than after-the-fact (or royalty-incurring) standards, wherever they happen
Ryan Grant: First of all thanks Ted thats great. theres some imperfect decentralization in the group. in a perfectly decentralized group all work items would occur without coordination or work from the chairs. We may want to define a few different work items with expectations of reports and coordination. I think heather sees some value in that i think we don't need to burn the chairs with this. ✪
...: the CCG could be more scalable if we set expectations for more decentralization most of the time
<heather_vescent> (If you want me to go over the work item types)
Mike Prorock: We have tackled some of these things, stuff like VC-EDU and other links heather has outlined. ✪
<rgrant> thanks both for the reminders in those links
<manu_sporny> hrm... this is my skeptical face -- I remember a particular thread about "digital slavery" :)
Agropper: i have never implied that the work were doing is unethical to the extent that term was somewhat applied to me or in the positive or negative sense. I think thats inappropriate. what i did raise as an issue is the leadership issue. ✪
<by_caballero> /me scowls in OAuth
<manu_sporny> /me lols
...: My point is i am not in a leadership position, I am here for the purpose i hope i am serving which is to point out human rights issues and offer ethical perspectives. The reason i raise this is because the leadership for dealing with these issues is not goign t o come from an invited expert in any of these groups.
Mike Prorock: In CCG we have no notion of an invited expert, we are open to anyone who wants to join up. Not sure what an invited expert is. ✪
Manu Sporny: Would like to go back to IIW recap. i did want to point to places where this conversation is going on. there is a W3C vision document, if you have a thought on it riase an issue. ✪
...: it talks about the web being for people and individuals, about us and the damage we've caused for the web
Mike Prorock: +1 Manu - no one is saying that ethics aren't important, but that they have a home and are broader reaching than this group - this group is focused on interop around credentials ✪
...: and the good things we've done! We have a code of Ethics and Professional Conduct which ahas w3c buyoff. this is not the group to discuss it, there is a group there please provide input there.
<identitywoman> In terms of Interop moving forward - the German folks who have about 70 projects working on interop in their context are coming to the DIF Interoperability Group next week 6am pacific Wednesday - I will be sure to send the information to call in to that to the list - the call is non IPR protected and open to all.
<mprorock> it is about identifying and leading to consensus
...: second opinion is on I'm an invited expert etc. This is not how this community and or w3c works. By doing something you are providing leadership. Concrete example working in w3c i wrote the first 2-3 standards as an invited expert, we didn't have voting capacity at w3c and it got through the system. tis absolutly possible to get stuff through w3c without being in a leadership position its all about rolling up your sleeve and doing the work. Having said that i appreciate your input and current work you're doing. im not saying that to diminish the work you're doing
<by_caballero> super-connecters are vital in this decentralized topography
...: i don't want people to get the false impression you are powerless. Pick up a pen and start writing
Heather Vescent: I liked a lot of what you said, i put links for work items and types of work items. We have a bucket for whatever type of item you want t owork on, if you're not sure what kind of item it is come to me. Additionally while manu is right that anyone can do a work item here, it can be intimidating at first. Speaking from experience, I never did becasue the process seems too much. If thats how you feel I am happy to shepherd you through this process, being a lead in it and so its setup for success so yo ucan navigate the process as a chair. ✪
<manu_sporny> Yes, agreed, the process can be intimidating... working with the sorts of people at W3C (literally the people that invented the Internet and the Web) can be intimidating... and they're people, and a lot of them are really super nice people that want to help you succeed.
<mprorock> honestly engage with PING etc
<manu_sporny> Yes, exactly ^^^ PING would be a good place to start
...: specifically to your comments I sincerely appreciate your perspective, I think what you want to do is thought leadership. I might invite you to start writing about this as folks have suggested, or find some folks that are likeminded or opposite of yours to collaborate on a document. you can have this be a CCG work item or not a work item. We can release that as a commentary.
Mike Prorock: Echoing sentiment, reach out to all chairs. Happy to discuss. Orie shepherded me through a few of those and still does. ✪
<tallted> 1. Leadership comes from within, more by example than anything else.
<tallted> 2. Ethical action includes paying attention to "human rights" concerns, as part of a universe of concerns.
<tallted> 3. Horizontal review of W3 work would include the groups Manu points to, and that might be the best path to getting specific human rights or other concerns addressed by any given spec (cf Privacy WG, Accessibility WG, among others)
<orie> I giveth TallTed the title of Chief Process Officer :)
Ted Thibodeau: Leadership comes from within, from each of us and the group, you may notice I have no title relevant to CCG, the best way to lead is to lead by example, if you write an ethics based document, it will either get buy in or it wont, if it does, we're on the same page, either your work is clear or theres a discussion that can happen. ✪
<manu_sporny> Is Ted a leader in the community -- absolutely -- by leading by example, the only part of any title we care about here is "what part of the process is the person with that title expected to execute"... and it ends pretty much there.
Mike Prorock: +1 TallTed - horiz review is highly important - PING hits a lot of these topics directly and is a part of that process ✪
...: Horizontal review, any document that goes to the reg track, which means that it is put out to all working groups that exist including privacy and accessibility. to make sure the documents are accessible to anyone who wants to access them. there are ways to build the document to people who are blind. The privacy has understanding of things tha tmost people in tech don't. This thing you are doing will expose private info as an example. They are there to address the privacy concerns. An ethics or human rights group could easily be a thing, and it needs to have a charter, and its charter might be to review specs and raise concerns. I think this will go a long way to what you are trying to do here.
Mike Prorock: Echoing that the privacy group or PING, thats probably where you want to be engaging it doesn't mean its not important but each of these groups have a focus, ours is a interop around credentials. as a group our goal is to move those items forward ✪
<heather_vescent> Adrian - believe me I know how difficult this community is for non-tech people.
Agropper: ill just say that you have no idea how unlikely it is for this group, given how much of a tech focus you have to be able to inclusive of non-tech perspective, i hae reachedc out to critics, and the people that would represent diversity of opinion of this and many other groups always without exception refuse to participate because of the structure. ✪
<mprorock> lol @Heather - you absolutely have fought that uphill battle
<identitywoman> what regulatory capture are you worried about?
<heather_vescent> that's not what we are saying Adrian. We are saying to put your concerns in words and push publish somewhere on the interenet.
Apgropper: i constantly try to engage with a more diverse audience, sure you can look to PING but to tell me all i have to do is look for a charter, you are not hearing what I have to say about reg capture and leadership of DHS. you're just not hearing me ✪
<bobwyman> What is the alternative to writing a charter?
Heather Vescent: Reminder: next week is TPAC presentation ✪
Agropper: folks are here for a particular reason which is B2B. ✪
<identitywoman> You should take the advice that people are giving you - write it down and make it clearer
<mprorock> strongly disagree as well
<heather_vescent> And community, do we want to give space to recap IIW again in a future meeting?
<by_caballero> i too would work somewhere better-paying if I cared less than 100% about human rights
Manu Sporny: I hear you and disagree very strong. We started our company to change the way our tech is being used, its upsetting to hear motives being impugned. Giving you benefit of doubt that it isn't what you're intending. ✪
Adrian Gropper: I'm not here for B2B. I'm here to find ways to empower people to exercise their rights. We're not all in thrall to corporate interests. [scribe assist by Bob Wyman] ✪
Ted Thibodeau: This is going to be pointed and focused at adrian. Stop impugning peoples motivations. You have a particular perspective on the world, and the way you present it makes me not want to hear it, where i don't want to see your name on an email and a pull request etc. and I'm sick of it, you're not an invited expert you're here as a community member. Community groups are different, our motivation is different. Even there are not strictly financial. The hours we put on this is not revenue generating, its not intended to be. It is insulting to suggest otherwise. ✪
<by_caballero> /me <3
<manu_sporny> Thanks all! :)
<by_caballero> still recording btw
Manu Sporny: +1 To talking about IIW stuff, please start thread with items. ✪