search

w3c / did-wg-charter

https://w3c.github.io/did-wg-charter/
Other
5 stars 6 forks source link

Made the changes agreed on last WG all #9

Closed iherman closed 3 years ago

iherman commented 3 years ago

See discussion on last meeting.

Preview | Diff

iherman commented 3 years ago

@jandrieu I would like to merge this before the weekend, to let the w3c strategy team review it in a form which is as final as possible. The changes relevant to Rubric are those that you required (adding reference to the Registry document).

Scheduled to merge tonight, French time...

brentzundel commented 3 years ago

To me there is a difference between saying it is in scope to transition a registry document to a formal Registry and saying it is in scope to transition a Note to a formal Registry. In the former case the "normative" portion has already been settled by the full working group and all the maintenance group needs to do is fit that within the bounds of the formal Registry. In the latter case the maintenance group would need to define the "normative" portion. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the work, but I wonder about the how appropriate it is for the maintenance group to handle. I would have no problem with this language if the rules for such a registry were already defined by this group before the maintenance group takes over.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 01:11 Ivan Herman @.***> wrote:

@jandrieu https://github.com/jandrieu I would like to merge this before the weekend, to let the w3c strategy team review it in a form which is as final as possible. The changes relevant to Rubric are those that you required (adding reference to the Registry document).

Scheduled to merge tonight, French time...

— You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/pull/9#issuecomment-898241728, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACPFKP7XLOV5UNZVBDJ7OQLT4TAT3ANCNFSM5B6BJJJQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email .

jandrieu commented 3 years ago

Right. I have a proposal in the works that we'll be putting before the group. We've been working on getting to first draft so registry rules have been back burnered.

My understanding is that the charter needs be finalized ASAP, likely before the group makes it a registry.

What's the language that would let us do both in parallel?

brentzundel commented 3 years ago

I like that wording, but am not sure it captures the additional condition that I was trying to convey. The current did wg needs to change the rubric Note to a Note about a rubric registry before the maintenance group can transition the Note about a rubric registry to a Registry for rubrics. I don't know if it's appropriate for the maintenance group to transition a rubric Note to a Registry for rubricsif the current group hasn't created the Note about a rubric registry

On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, 00:06 Ivan Herman @.***> wrote:

@.**** commented on this pull request.

In index.html https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/pull/9#discussion_r689042319:

@@ -151,13 +151,18 @@

Scope

         <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/did-spec-registries/">DID Specification Registries</a>, including transitioning it from a WG Note to a W3C Registry, should such a formal registry be defined by W3C Process and should that process allow such a transition.

       </li>

       <li>

  • DID Method Rubric (Note: this link is currently 404, the planned publication for this note is mid-August)

  • DID Method Rubric, including transitioning it from a WG Note to a W3C Registry, should such a formal registry be defined by W3C Process and should that process allow such a transition.

I am fine with such a change. An alternative is to replace the whole reference with the text in §2.2:

If, during the chartered period of the Working Group, the next version of the W3C Process is adopted, incorporating the concept of a Registry Track, the Working Group will consider publishing the DID Method Rubric as a Registry Track document instead of a Working Group Note.

which less committal than what is in §1 and does not get too much into the details.

— You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/pull/9#discussion_r689042319, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACPFKP5RFRL6GR3K5GOZWIDT45RQXANCNFSM5B6BJJJQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email .

iherman commented 3 years ago

I like that wording, but am not sure it captures the additional condition that I was trying to convey. The current did wg needs to change the rubric Note to a Note about a rubric registry before the maintenance group can transition the Note about a rubric registry to a Registry for rubrics. I don't know if it's appropriate for the maintenance group to transition a rubric Note to a Registry for rubricsif the current group hasn't created the Note about a rubric registry

(I am a bit neutral in this): the question is what you mean by "appropriate". Administratively, ie, per W3C Process, there is no problem: the group will do whatever the charter says; there is no such thing in the process as a "maintenance" WG.

I believe your term "appropriate" is more practical: the planning of the WG (and the experience of the VC WG) is that a maintenance WG is not expected to have a high level of activity (with only a few telcos, for example) and it is therefore not the right place to have a significant technical discussion on the establishment of a particular Registry policy. I indeed find this argument compelling.

If we go with the latter set of argument, then my comment on

DID Method Rubric, including transitioning it from a WG Note to a W3C Registry, should such a formal registry be defined by W3C Process, should that process allow such a transition, and should the previous working group define the registration process for such a registry.

is purely stylistic. It sounds a bit strange to have such a sentence in the charter text: after all, once the charter becomes official, the term "previous WG doing something" becomes meaningless. I wonder if it is not better to keep the charter text as it was but put that extra sentence on the previous WG as a "comment" (with the yellow background and all that), meaning that the preliminary review of the charter would happen with the intended final text but a comment whereby the final charter may or may not include the reference to the registry, depending on the state of discussion on the Registry policy in the current WG. What this means is that the policy discussion ought to happen before we submit this charter for AC approval.

WDYT?