Remove authors

[selfissued]

VC-JOSE-COSE has no Authors section. Follow suit.

[selfissued]

I'm all for acknowledging contributions. The place for that is the Acknowledgements section. I'd be glad to list them there.

Authors are people who are actively working on the current specification. I'll note that Orie approved this PR.

[ChristopherA]

Though I'm was not active in this specific document, it clearly is derivative of work that I was an author of, and uses concepts and language that I brought to the table that more than just a contribution. If this was an entirely new document, I might understand the change, but it isn't.

-1.

[talltree]

-1. It would be one thing if this spec just referenced the DID spec. But it is a recasting to make it a wider net that includes DID Core, so I agree with the points made by @msporny, @dlongley, and @iherman.

[msporny]

@decentralgabe wrote:

I find it strange to include authors that have not directly worked on the source material within the VCWG

80%+ of the source material, verbatim, is from DID Core. That's where the Controller Document spec comes from and @dlongley, @peacekeeper, @talltree, and @ChristopherA made significant contributions to the concepts and principles in that document.

That content from DID Core was then copy-pasted into Data Integrity and VC JOSE COSE (and improved).

I'm repeating this because I'm not sure that either @decentralgabe or @selfissued realize this. Most of the content in question WAS NOT created in the VCWG. It was created in the DID WG, by the authors listed on the DID Core specification.

IOW, I don't think it makes sense for Author A to write 37 pages (the length of the DID Core spec contents moved to Controller Document), then have Author B come along and add 4 pages (which is what happened in VC JOSE COSE), then remove Author A from the front page, replace the author with Author B and then mention "the previous authors" in a footnote buried on the last page.

I don't understand why you are taking this position, @decentralgabe -- can you please clarify your thought process on who should get acknowledgement for work performed, and in what order?

To ask the question a different way, @decentralgabe... how would you feel if we copied the vc-json-schema specification to another WG, removed your name from it (as both an Editor and Author), and added someone that made some minor changes as the author. Does that seem respectful and fair to you?

[decentralgabe]

80%+ of the source material, verbatim, is from DID Core. That's where the Controller Document spec comes from and @dlongley, @peacekeeper, @talltree, and @ChristopherA made significant contributions to the concepts and principles in that document.

That content from DID Core was then copy-pasted into Data Integrity and VC JOSE COSE (and improved).

I'm repeating this because I'm not sure that either @decentralgabe or @selfissued realize this. Most of the content in question WAS NOT created in the VCWG. It was created in the DID WG, by the authors listed on the DID Core specification.

IOW, I don't think it makes sense for Author A to write 37 pages (the length of the DID Core spec contents moved to Controller Document), then have Author B come along and add 4 pages (which is what happened in VC JOSE COSE), then remove Author A from the front page, replace the author with Author B and then mention "the previous authors" in a footnote buried on the last page.

I agree with your reasoning, I did not have this previous understanding. Especially given the comments from the DID authors. I reverse my position...it does make sense to retain the DID authorship.

[msporny]

@selfissued wrote:

I'll note that Orie approved this PR.

If @OR13 would like to have his name removed as an author, we can do that, that's his choice.

Before we do that, however, I want to make absolutely sure he's aware of what this PR does. I would prefer to not remove @OR13's name from the list of authors for reasons elaborated upon above.

[OR13]

I approved this pull request, because I am not an author of this document.

I'm supportive of enabling https URLs to be used instead of decentralized identifiers.

In particular I believe this is a better solution than did:web for many of the use cases that currently use did web.

I don't believe that copying text from did core is sufficient to provide meaningful interoperability.

I'd expect the authors listed to address the delta, which is mostly how https resolution, and dereferencing work for the relevant media types (Including fragment processing), and how that is associated with document loaders and proof verification.

I'd personally be fine with a citation or acknowledgement in the appendix, but I leave it to the editors of the current document to address this.

[peacekeeper]

I'm supportive of enabling https URLs to be used instead of decentralized identifiers.

+1, I've been arguing for this as well, pretty much since did:web was first proposed

[msporny]

I'm marking this PR as pending close, it does not have consensus to merge, nor does it seem like it will ever get consensus to merge.