search

w3c / did-core

W3C Decentralized Identifier Specification v1.0
https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/
Other
407 stars 95 forks source link

Add brief historical perspective in acknowledgements. #790

Closed msporny closed 3 years ago

msporny commented 3 years ago

This adds a brief historical perspective on the specification before it entered the DID WG and acknowledges/appreciates the individuals that worked on the proto-documents that led to the DID Specification.

See the new text here: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/did-core/pull/790.html#acknowledgements

Preview | Diff

iherman commented 3 years ago

Before merging the echidna action should be switched off (I guess the yml file should be removed) to avoid the merge leading to a new TR publication.

msporny commented 3 years ago

Before merging the echidna action should be switched off (I guess the yml file should be removed) to avoid the merge leading to a new TR publication.

I have disabled Echidna auto-publish here: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/actions/workflows/auto-publish.yml

iherman commented 3 years ago

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-08-17

List of resolutions:

View the transcript ### 3. historical PR _See github pull request [#790](https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/790)._ **Brent Zundel:** Anything else on this topic? … Manu has written a PR about the historical context of the DID spec … It's to acknowledge past work, people, and efforts. … Please review if you want to tweak this and add suggestions **Manu Sporny:** It's currently written as the editors writing this, I'd like to upgrade it to the WG writing it. > *Joe Andrieu:* +1 for speaking "from the WG" **Manu Sporny:** I don't think there is anything controversial, we'd like to acknowledge the work before there was a DID WG. > *bumblefudge:* +1 > *Kaliya Young:* I went back and looked up past IIW Sessions that foreshadow the group - they are there in 2015 - [https://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=blockchain&go=Go](https://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=blockchain&go=Go) **Manu Sporny:** We'd like to give people an understanding that this work started long ago. > *Drummond Reed:* +1 to that change. **Manu Sporny:** Would anyone object to change this from "the editors acknowledge" to "the WG acknowledges", or similar > *Dave Longley:* +1 to "The Working Group acknowledges" **Ivan Herman:** It's more appropriate if it says "the WG" rather than "the editors" > *Manu Sporny:* agree, Ivan -- the only reason we put "Editors" is to avoid process objections... > *Manu Sporny:* whatever those might be > *Ted Thibodeau Jr.:* +1 spread the love to as many of the shoulders on which we stand as we can recall > *Charles Lehner:* +1 > *Markus Sabadello:* +1 **Ivan Herman:** This is only editorial, so I don't think anyone would object from a process point of view. **Manu Sporny:** Should we document a WG resolution, to make absolutely sure? **Brent Zundel:** Any changes to the proposal? > **Proposed resolution: The WG will add editorial text to the acknowledgements section of the Proposed Recommendation that gives some historical context for the work and thanks those who were involved.** *(Brent Zundel)* > *Manu Sporny:* +1 > *Drummond Reed:* +1 > *Brent Zundel:* +1 > *Shigeya Suzuki:* +1 > *Dave Longley:* +1 > *Adrian Gropper:* +1 > *Joe Andrieu:* +1 > *Ivan Herman:* +1 > *Markus Sabadello:* +1 > *Kaliya Young:* +1 > *Orie Steele:* +1 > *Ted Thibodeau Jr.:* +1 > ***Resolution #1: The WG will add editorial text to the acknowledgements section of the Proposed Recommendation that gives some historical context for the work and thanks those who were involved.*** **Ivan Herman:** Do we say somewhere in the document that all appendices are non-normative? … If not, then we should mark acknowledgements as being explicitly non-normative. **Manu Sporny:** It doesn't say that, I can add it. We have it for all other sections. > *Drummond Reed:* Yes, Appendix A says non-normative explicitly. **Manu Sporny:** I'm going to raise an issue. **Brent Zundel:** Anything else on this topic?
iherman commented 3 years ago

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-08-24

View the transcript ### 5. DID core issues _See github pull request [#792](https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/792), [#790](https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/790)._ **Manu Sporny:** Just wanted to draw attention to the two issues on DID Core. **Daniel Burnett:** Alrighty. … Since we don't have Joe on at the moment... let's just spend a few minutes on that, Manu. **Manu Sporny:** There are two PRs for DID Core: one of them is the acknowledgement section - I believe that is completely ready to merge... Well, there's one minor thing and then it's ready to merge. … I'm not hitting the merge button until the votes are in. I think that's the right thing to do? It won't autopublish... … The other Pull Request is for... Charles made a representation-specific entries change to the spec. I believe it's largely editorial. … I suggest we don't pull that in until after the votes are in and we're cleaning up the recommendation document. … Two questions: is that the process the chairs want? And does the group see any issue with pulling in these PRs? … Charles, it's strange to make changes to the specification after putting it to vote. But I think they're totally okay as it's editorial. > *Markus Sabadello:* +1 they're editorial **Manu Sporny:** "mostly editorial" -> I am asserting both of these things are entirely editorial - and would be surprised if anyone said otherwise. **Drummond Reed:** I've looked at them and agree it's editorial. Not an issue. > *Drummond Reed:* I also agree not to pull them into the final until after the vote is done. **Daniel Burnett:** I'm not hearing any objections to pulling them in - when the time is right. … I guess we could do it in the working copy... but they wouldn't apply until we get to the final specification. **Manu Sporny:** Editors... are we good to go? > *Ted Thibodeau Jr.:* +1 merge when it feels right **Brent Zundel:** To my understanding, he is satisfied. > *Drummond Reed:* +1
msporny commented 3 years ago

Editorial, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no sustained objections, WG resolution to merge, merging.