Meeting minutes
Phil Archer: thanks Benjamin Young for scribing
… we'll be covering the new charter which was approved today
… I've got an update on the VCDM
… and we'll talk about the F2F in June
new charter
Phil Archer: Ivan Herman can you tell us about the new charter
<Phil Archer> https://
Ivan Herman: just announced about an hour ago
… we made it!
… there were some minor changes at the last round with the management
… stuff we added to the tentative deliverable list
… we made explicit what was implicitly there--that there must be IPR agreements before the WG can accept them
… there are three documents from "outside"
… so we had to add some text about monitoring the IPR
… that's the most important change that we've done
… one of the titles did have "European" in it--which we removed to make it clear that these are global standards
… you also likely got emails about being kicked out of the WG
… but you will also be invited to rejoin
… that's about it.
Phil Archer: great work everyone. congrats!
… please reapply for the jobs you were just fired from
… I do hope everyone will
… if you've been debating about joining, I hope you do
… I'll be syncing up with Brent soon, so we can plan how we'll do all this work
… if we focus on just what we MUST do--which was discussed at TPAC last year
… VCALM, Bar Codes, etc. all need to be done
Phil Archer: and VCDMv2 PRs
… even if we don't get to the tentative deliverables, there's still loads to do
… if you put your hand up as an editor, it's time to start
… we'll likely be doing more frequent calls
… how often these "everybody" calls should be?
Manu Sporny: I think the big group call at once of month is fine
Manu Sporny: we used to do them weekly and some concurrent special topic calls
… we do have existing meetings happening under the CCG
… we can shift those to WG meetings, but folks will need to change their status
… and we'll have to deal with attendance as we go
… but we do already have existing meetings for most of these work items
… the good news is that I don't think it will take a tremendous amount of reshuffling
… as long as it's OK to shift those existing meetings
Ivan Herman: just to be legalistic
… I'd prefer we have weekly meetings
… we could still pick specific topics occasionally, like Render Method
… mainly, because the small group meetings are not allowed to make binding decisions
… so if any resolution is needed, it would have to happen in the "big" call
… so, I'd suggest a "big call" once a week, but also continue the small group meetings
Phil Archer: so...no one likes to go to meetings they don't feel needed at
… so, here's an idea
<Kevin Dean> 30/30?
Phil Archer: what if we did a 90 minute call, and a 60 minute calls on the smaller topics
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> +1 weekly timeslot which can be cancelled if there's nothing to do. All lower frequencies fall off people's mental if not other calendars.
Ivan Herman: many of us have conflicts afterward
Manu Sporny: same problem here
… I think what we've been doing has been working well
<Dave Longley> frequent cancellations can be confusing -- bringing any resolutions to the monthly meeting might be the way to go -- for all specs
Manu Sporny: I do think we should meet more often for Render Method and Confidence Method
… which currently trade off, so there's often 2 weeks between
<Dave Longley> (my "cancellations" comment is in response to ted)
Manu Sporny: and folks are getting confused about which topic is the current call topic
… to be clear, we're already talking about 7 hours of calls a week
… which is insane
… we're already doing 5 hours of calls
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> (I don't expect frequent cancellations, as I think we pretty much always have stuff to do.)
Manu Sporny: the current cadence seems fine to move things forward
… but we should really lean on the editors to ask for more call time
… and the group that is meeting can inform the schedule
Phil Archer: so I know we've got 3 meetings in conflict on this current call time
… but VCALM is at a different time
… folks on that will have to resign and rejoin
… Elaine Wooton, is the Bar Code group meeting happening?
Elaine Wooton: we were waiting on the recharter
… Manu Sporny, what was the call schedule before?
Manu Sporny: we haven't met for awhile, I would suggest, though, that we keep it separate
… really the editors should inform it
Phil Archer: to get to CR in 18 months...
… some of these will be easy, some specs will not be
… so, let's move on
VCDM
Manu Sporny: just drawing people's attention to some PRs
<Phil Archer> https://
Manu Sporny: Lehn sent a PR about referencing Render Method
… there are some suggested changes
… then a few more PRs raised yesterday about some class # changes
… but we'll give those the usual "week" review time
Phil Archer: how far are we from VCDM v2.1?
Manu Sporny: v2.1 is supposed to be a refresh, no new features, that sort of thing
… we could do it today, but I don't think we should
… I think we should let the other specs mature a bit more before we rev VCDM
… because they, like Confidence Method, may effect what goes into VCDMv2.1.
<Dave Longley> +1 to let the other specs mature to see if we need new features, but hopefully not as it saves us more work
<Ivan Herman> q+
Manu Sporny: at minimum, we're likely to make changes to the context
… and the process around CR can be pretty heavy
… so I'd suggest we attempt Rec for VCDMv2.1 in a year
Ivan Herman: have we published it as a FPWD yet?
Manu Sporny: no
Ivan Herman: so to make it official, we should at least do that
… which will start the IPR process, etc.
Manu Sporny: +1 to that
… I'm happy to move that forward
… I think what we said was that we were not going to publish a FPWD until we're sure it's needed
… like Bitstring Status List doesn't look like it needs any changes, so we wouldn't rev it's version
Ivan Herman: correct. I was only talking about VCDMv2.1
Manu Sporny: great. Just wanted to clarify that scope
Phil Archer: if this group exists for anything, it's for the maintenance of the VCDMv2.1
… we do need a resolution
… but I would like to check in with Brent first
… during the lifetime of this charter--which started today--if we don't think we'll be to CR for a year, then we should plan the rest of the process
… clearly, the VCDM is the core specification for this group
VC specifications published with ISO
Phil Archer: and a question has been raised around whether we should push it through the ISO process
… Rigo wants to make it happen
… I and Brent are in favor of it
Manu Sporny: +1 to doing that
… I think we should use the process to get ISO equivalence
Ivan Herman: we're working on a tool that can be used for this process
… so wait a bit Phil Archer but there are some good things coming, hopefully
… we're also hearing conflicting things from ISO
… do we need to produce a PDF or a Word file?
… do we need to match the ISO style?
… we're fighting to get permission to avoid that kind of a revision
… I don't want to get into all those details
… we mainly need to know if this group supports it at ISO
Manu Sporny: which one of our specs should we do?
<Dave Longley> +1 to doing all the specs
Manu Sporny: my suggestion is as many as possible
… especially, whichever ones provide the foundation for an interoperable ecosystem
… also, I have seen ISO spec's published that are 2 page PDFs which point to other specs
… and people buy the PDF that contains the link...
… I don't know what the process for that is, but we should at least ask about it
Ivan Herman: for the which document question: it comes back to this WG
… the idea from management is to start with the VCDM to learn the process
… and once we understand the process, we try to do all the others
Ivan Herman: for the second question, they have made the process harder in recent years
… WCAG has just gone to ISO and published their work
… and it had to be converted to Word
… but he did make the case that the text could stay the same
… but the format changed
… if anyone can help change things at ISO, please do
Phil Archer: if we just do VCDM, does that create an ecosystem on it's own?
… or does it need Data Integrity, Bitstring Status List, etc?
Manu Sporny: yes +1 to that
… we should look into
… I know ISO standards do reference other specs, so maybe we only need to ISO VCDM
… I'd be minus one on bundling everything together
… then the excuse can become, we followed the ISO bundled version published 10 years ago
… my hope is that wouldn't happen
… but it is why I'd prefer VCDM be the primary one and reference the others
… however, I don't think VCDM does not reference all the related parts
<Phil Archer> https://
Manu Sporny: it may reference Data Integrity, but not the cryptosuites
… but I agree starting with VCDM makes sense
… so, a long term option may be to help Respec make Word docs
… there's an open XML format for Word from a decade ago
… but we'd need to be clear that it's auto-generated
… the danger is that the changes would end up in the W3C spec...which would not be wanted
Ivan Herman: yeah, that should be prevented. W3C is in charge of it's specs.
… we keep the IPR. We keep it free.
… and W3C standards MUST keep it's same weight as before
Phil Archer: there are others who have views on getting VCDM v2.0 into the ISO?
… it would be the only spec at ISO for at least at year
Phillip Long: I'd support getting the VCDM in makes sense
… and we've got too much other work to do before trying to get the others there
Dave Longley: we do need to check the normative references
… not sure we can update the VCDM without having to rev the spec when we add them
… but we do need to make sure the links are there
Manu Sporny: +1 to the idea
… we do point to Data Integrity and VC JOSE Cose, but neither of those point to the cryptosuites
… so, when we do the ISO thing, we should provide a list of normative things in the ISO spec
<Phillip Long> +1 to Manu Sporny's suggestion
Phil Archer: I do have a limited experience with ISO
… I know from that experience and others that they worry a lot about normative references
… recently there was a big deal made about "informative references" being taken out--what they call a bibliography
… so if we really feel the cryptosuites and things need to be an ISO standard, we will need to discuss that
… but at minimum, we need to get the VCDM into ISO so it can be pointed to by regulators and those who only do that
<Phillip Long> It also matters in some instances when procurements are being done by some organizations
Ivan Herman: I am not sure the indirect reference will work in terms of ISO
Phil Archer: it's that normative references to other things become normative for the ISO spec
… so when I wrote a standard that pointed to the URI spec at the IETF, that spec became part of the other one
Manu Sporny: I think the thing we want to do can be worked out as we take the journey
<Phil Archer> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2.0 (https://
Ivan Herman: do we want to go with VCDMv2.0 vs. v2.1?
Manu Sporny: v2.0
Phil Archer: agreed
… it's because v2.1 is a long way out
Ivan Herman: won't the ISO process take the same amount of time?
Phil Archer: yes, but what gets published is what's sent in at the start of the process
<Phillip Long> This is being played out in the mDL server verification recommendation dispute (aka "no phone home")
Phil Archer: so we have to start with something that's complete
… I wasn't sure at the beginning of the call, but if v2.1 will take a year (as it sounds), then we'd be delaying the whole thing
Manu Sporny: I think we should do 2.0
… there is an upgrade process
… so you'd get an ISO # like ISO####:YYYY version
<Dave Longley> +1 to do 2.0 and use the upgrade process
<Phil Archer> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2.0 (https://
Manu Sporny: so, I definitely think we should start with v2.0
<Phillip Long> +1 to submitting 2.0 and use the update process that ISO uses
Ivan Herman: can we put that in the resolution?
… state that we plan to update it?
… I just don't want us to be stuck
Phil Archer: let's try that one then
<Phil Archer> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2 (https://
<Manu Sporny> +1
<Phillip Long> +1
<Dave Longley> +1
<Phil Archer> +1
<Benjamin Young> +1
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> +1
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Will Abramson> +1
RESOLUTION: The WG would like to submit VCDM 2 (https://
Face to Face in June
Phil Archer: face-to-face in June. Charter is up and running, so I believe this is happening.
… we hope to host you in Brussels at the GS1 offices there
… we plan to do a social event
… fries with mayonnaise will be a thing
… also beer and chocolate
<Phillip Long> +1 to both - fallback if not beer
Phil Archer: we'd do the tour in the afternoon, most likely
<Joe Andrieu> what are the dates?
Phil Archer: the room we'll have holds up to 30 people
<Joe Andrieu> thahnks
Phil Archer: and good telecon setup, so remote folks can join
… we also have additional meeting rooms for breakouts
… so, if you are working on a specific deliverable and want a breakout, that can be accomodated
Ivan Herman: so, Brussels is pretty big
… the meeting place is not in the historical center
… do you have a list of hotels near the office?
Phil Archer: there are not hotels near the office...well, one, but I don't like it
… I'll send out more info soon
… the one I recommend is a bit of a trek
… the Moxy is great for breakfasts and stuff
CCG Reports
Manu Sporny: we have work in our charter that we now need to migrate into the WG
… I'm not suggesting we do this all at once
… we have new normative specs
… they have normative work put into them and continue to be developed
… we should ask the CCG to publish them as Final Community Group Reports
… that will get the IPR stuff done
… and then we can adopt them here in the WG
… so I'd like us to resolve to pull in the spec Drafts listed in our charter
Phil Archer: do we need a resolution for that?
Manu Sporny: it would make it easier to do, yes.
Phil Archer: it does mean that folks who want to stay involved
… is there anyone who we know cannot make that transition?
Manu Sporny: we have tried throughout the process in the CCG to make sure Invited Expert processes were done for anyone making significant contributions
… we will have to check again to be sure
… and that will really fall to the editors
<Phil Archer> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt all draft specifications listed in the New Normative Specifications section of the 2026 W3C VCWG Charter (https://
<Phil Archer> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt all draft specifications listed in the New Normative Specifications section of the 2026 W3C VCWG Charter (https://
<Ivan Herman> +1
<Phil Archer> +1
<Manu Sporny> +1
<Benjamin Young> +1
<Dave Longley> +1
<Dmitri Zagidulin> +1
<Ted Thibodeau Jr.> +1
<Will Abramson> +1
<Phillip Long> +1
<Joe Andrieu> +1
RESOLUTION: Adopt all draft specifications listed in the New Normative Specifications section of the 2026 W3C VCWG Charter (https://
Phil Archer: yes, we will need to re-explain much of this if/when the technology changes to auto-scribing
… the thing we did not get to today are the two specs currently in flight: Confidence and Resolution
Confidence Method
<Joe Andrieu> w3c/
Joe Andrieu: we need to get into the nitty gritty
… but that PR shows more about the status
… we're meeting next week
… so please look at that if you hope to attend
Phil Archer: thanks Benjamin Young for scribing
… and everyone for coming
… talk soon