---
# System prepended metadata

title: DID WG - 5 Oct 2021

---

# DID WG - 5 Oct 2021

## Scribe
Justin Richer & Dmitri Zagidulin

## Participants
- Orie Steele
- Justin Richer
- Dan Burnett
- Ted Thibodeau
- Phillippe Le Hégaret
- Drummond Reed
- Joe Andrieu
- Markus Sabadello
- Ryan Grant
- Brent Zundel
- Dmitri Zagidulin
- Pamela Dingle
- Adrian Gropper
- Mike Prorock

## Agenda

### Topic (time)
1-Agenda Review, Introductions  (2 min)
2-DID Spec status update  (5 min)
3-A note about Core issues  (3 min)
4-DID Registry Resolutions [1] (15 min)
5-DID Registry Issues [2] (20 min)
6-Rubric PRs [3] (7 min)
7-Rubric Issues [4] (3 min)

### Links
[1] https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+%22did+method+registration+resolution%22+
[2] https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
[3] https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
[4] https://github.com/w3c/did-rubric/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc

# Chats?
  - should we put irc-appropriate comments here or in zoom chat?
  - /me snarky comments don't go into the notes so keep it to yourself :P
  - participants should make on-topic public comments under the relevant topic heading

# Queue
  - Queue is empty
  - 
  - 
  - 

# Minutes
## Agenda Review / Introductions

burn: nobody new, hackmd.io link is open https://hackmd.io/IGB4uR6vTAqjCN3GOeeeAA?edit
... add your name
... (Ivan will clean up later)
... suggestions for changes to agenda?
... queue to be managed in hackmd document


## Status of DID Document

burn: phillippe has joined us to update

phillippe: bad news (sorry)
... had a call w/objectors to TR 2-3 weeks ago
... did not manage to find common ground w/various folks
... decided to send formal objection to W3C council, getting pulled into w3c as legal entity
... advisory board has been working toward being director-free for some time, instead council w/advisory board & TAG members
... in case of formal objection, analysis is sent up to council
... have several formal objections to charters, DID is the only formal objection to a TR
... have yet to see how council will do w/this
... this thursday, AB will take formal objection on agenda and rule on it
... could take a month/month and a half to get through
... tricky bit is to get recusal w/in council, could end up leaving only people who don't care or know as much
... if the council can make a ruling, we're good w/new process; otherwise we need to go back to drawing board

burn: question about recusal; any process that allows the objectors to participate in a ruling is unacceptable

phillippe: this is the tricky bit, I hear you
... every single formal objection triggers this; another one was a TAG participant
... will write analysis, circulate it to each side, and send to council

brent: very curious to know who instigated this extra-process of going to council 

phillippe: director & myself

brent: will interpret this as director using the council to help make his decision

phillippe: he hasn't delegated his power to the council, director can still disagree

drummond: don't think any of us knew about this option; challenge is that those who are have been working on this are getting ?'s from customers about why this is happening
... my ? is: what's public visibility of this process?

phillippe: fair question; if you look for a process, you will not find one, that's part of the exercise to figure ou thte process
... visibility: received authorization to make almost all formal objections public; there was also the call, minutes will be \[have been\] [made public](https://www.w3.org/2021/09/21-did10-minutes.html)  
... deliberations of council, believe they can be made public? not sure, process not set in stone; deliberations will be made public

burn: what, if anything, should we do? can we help the process move forward?

phillippe: sending one or more things through council, council should be able to make decision w/in month, month an d ahalf a t most

ted t: charters may have been waiting longer, but they don't have an expiration; how far is extension going to go?
... what do we do if TR is rejected?

phillippe: extending charters as necessary (both DID/VC), if no decision, more extension
... you guys did everything in the process you were asked to do, WG did nothing wrong in process
... technical perspective, remains to be determined

burn: there is some followon work that is depending on this, other charters, etc
... is everything put on hold until this is resolved?
... will there be a way for us to provide input to this council, particularly if the recusal process results in objectors remaining on the council

phillippe: yes; will happily share analysis, anyone is welcome to correct, disagreements are welcome to be written/submitted
... last time, council invited co-chairs to present directly to the council, likely to happen again
... council will be welcoming feedback on process, especially recusal issues; it's recognized as a potential problem from the start

burn: this has gone on way longer than other items, but it's important. queue will be closed soon to move to other topics.

pam: do you expect transparency over who forms council, who recuses, and whether or not they've been voting members in the WG?

phillippe: council is composed of AB & TAG members, it's public information
... eg, Amy (a document editor) is by default in the council, don't know who's recused
... would be surprised if information is not public

mike p: If I break up, mute me and move on
... what actual questions are coming up from the formal objection side that can be taken back to the WG to address?
... related: payments spec is up for vote, directly uses blockchain, why is that not being held to the same standards?

phillippe: nothing WG can do to satisfy them short of waiting until DID methods are standardized
... would surprise me if WG did that

mike p: they do not feel standardizing did:key & did:web would be sufficient

phillippe: correct, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's what I understand from the objectors
... did:key & did:web are not decentralized enough

mike p: did:key is decentralized as possible, would a technical read of that help address their concerns?

phillippe: I doubt it
... mozilla made formal objection public already, I don't think there's anything this group can do
... mozilla objected to original charter

mike p: second question, why is DID WG being used as test case to push environmental concerns
... I agree w/holding ourselves to higher standard
... reality is, payments group is up for vote
... DIDs are using existing infrastructure indirectly
... why are same standards not being applied to payments group?
... browser vendors want to support payments w/in their platforms, but want to block smaller tech

phillippe: if there are formal objections we will receive them in the next few weeks
... would be surprised to see objections on the same grounds
... none of the current implementations rely on bitcoin; it could be used, but it's not the case today
... besides, who said that you have to be consistent, from one objection to another?  you can disagree with yourself w/in a month ;)
... I don't guarantee payments will go through smoothly

burn: anyone object to continuing to spend time w/phillippe instead of moving on?

### objections
  - (none)

markus: thank you for explaining that process
... in this process, is there any role for advisory committee and rest of member organizations?
... 3 objections but 40 in favor, how does that fit in?

phillippe: right now we are at the phase of whether to sustain or override the formal objection
... director decided to get input from the council
... once the director's decision is made we can still file objections todirector's decisions
... AC can request to overrule director
... AB is always open to hear from members
... environmental concerns: we agree we should look into this further, it's up to the director; everyone is interested in solving the problem

burn: do you believe the director's request to do this is b/c the director specifically needs input, or is this an opportunity b/c of the nature of the request & who's involved to see whether the proposed future directorless plan will work?

phillippe: speculating here, I think it's more the latter (to see if the process will work)
... once we are director-free, too late to say we don't like the roles
... hope that we see this as part of process 2022
... I encourage you to comment on the whole experience w/the council

burn: we may be discouraged w/the delay, this isn't indicative of greater concern with this specific work

phillippe: correct, this WG did everything by the charter
... it's an opportunity to test how we go director-free

ted: Comment here on evolving DRAFT Director-Free process -- https://github.com/w3c/w3process/tree/director-free

brent: appreciate the recognition; we did everything according to charter and process, but objectors didn't
... objectors had opportunity to object during two separate CR's, they didn't
... this is very frustrating; I speak for more than myself

drummond: add myself to bren's voice, already a lot of people depending on this
... being seen from the outside as classic back-room politics; v. small group is overriding a majority, w/2years of work so i think you can appreciate the level of frustration that this causes for us.

rgrant: +1

phillippe: appreciate you bringing that up
... some did not formally object before, but did now
... process allows them to do that; but director/council can take that into account when ruling this
... understand the frustration
... timing-wise, it's not like we're missing opportunities
... the timing of the decision is always a consideration of the Director's
... if you believe the objection is causing harm because of the delay, I encourage you to
... mention that to the director. It would be useful input, on that front.
... regarding the VC charter, the reason it's getting delayed, is we were waiting on Brent
... to do a draft of the VC charter before sending to the committee.
... But as you pointed out, you're waiting to see what happens with the DID WG charter,
... before knowing what the new VC charter should have.

burn: the result of this (DID spec) is important outside of W3C, and will be watched very closely.
... I know this kind of stuff happens (this is not the only WG / Standards Group where this has occurred),
... but I just want to reiterate that there are many industries that could be harmed because of the delay.

phillippe: unfortunately, that added importance, makes it that much more important for us to 
... observe what the committee does.

burn: I may need to stop the queue after Orie, just for time reasons.

brent: I want to raise the concern that VCs and DIDs represent a distinct methodology for handling digital
... identity, that is in direct opposition to some standards that are already being adopted and folded into
... the technologies of the formal objectors. Any delays in our spec directly servedru the business interests
... of the objectors, since it affects competing standards.

phillippe: unfortunately, that is very often the case. Formal objections like that get heated very quickly.
... I will do my best to ensure council and the director makes the decision as soon as possible.
... I'm sorry you're getting caught in this.

brent: I appreciate everything you're doing, Phillippe. My ability to believe that the other side is acting
... in good faith is rapidly fading.

OR13: are all formal objections to specs going to the council? Or just specific ones?

phillippe: at the moment, all formal objections will be sent to council.
... we have 4 charters being caught up in this right now.

drummond: there's a very specific reality (both DIDs and VCs are affected) -- ISO has a spec for Mobile Drivers Licenses,
... that is being widely perceived as a competitor to VCs and DIDs. And we know some of the objectors have strong
... business interests in the adoption of MDLs. So, it raises ethical questions in our mind, not just in objecting
... to competing tech, but in favoring the specification of a competing standards body (W3C vs ISO).

phillippe: neither the Director or I knew about that part. If you believe this should affect the decision,
... I encourage you to write to myself and the Director.

drummond: will do

burn: this goes for everyone, if you believe there are critical items for Phillippe and the Director, please send them.

brent: Thank you Philippe for joining us today

rgrant: +1

burn: thanks to the scribes! meeting ended.

# Topics originally on the schedule but not covered in today's call
## A note about Core issues
## DID Registry Resolutions
## DID Registry Issues
## Rubric PRs
## Rubric Issues

