02:00:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #did-methods
02:01:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/11/10-did-methods-irc
02:03:29 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #did-methods
02:04:59 <tidoust> tidoust has joined #did-methods
02:05:21 <msporny__> msporny__ has joined #did-methods
02:05:29 <pchampin> scribe+
02:05:44 <msporny__> present+
02:05:49 <pchampin> present+
02:05:56 <denkeni> present+
02:06:19 <hsano0> hsano0 has joined #did-methods
02:06:33 <dariusk> dariusk has joined #did-methods
02:06:40 <dezell> dezell has joined #did-methods
02:06:41 <tidoust> present+
02:06:50 <dezell> present+ David_Ezell
02:06:54 <Kazue3> Kazue3 has joined #did-methods
02:07:04 <Wip> present+
02:07:24 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #did-methods
02:07:26 <Kazue3> present+
02:07:31 <JoeAndrieu> preant
02:07:37 <markus_sabadello> present+
02:07:39 <pchampin> s/preant/
02:07:43 <shigeya> shigeya has joined #did-methods
02:07:45 <JoeAndrieu> present+
02:07:45 <hsano0> present+
02:07:49 <dariusk> present+
02:08:08 <identitywoman> identitywoman has joined #did-methods
02:08:14 <thelounge> thelounge has joined #did-methods
02:08:14 <pchampin> Wip: the goal is to discuss about the proposed charter for a DID Methods WG
02:08:20 <shigeya7> shigeya7 has joined #did-methods
02:08:20 <Wip> https://www.w3.org/2024/04/did-wg-charter.html
02:08:34 <shigeya7> present+ Shigeya Suzuki
02:08:42 <pchampin> ... let's start with introductions
02:08:48 <jay4> jay4 has joined #did-methods
02:09:33 <pchampin> [everyone states their name, their affiliation and the place where they come from]
02:12:26 <pchampin> ... who wants to start the conversation?
02:13:15 <chunming> chunming has joined #did-methods
02:13:18 <msporny__> Here's the charter: https://w3c.github.io/did-methods-wg-charter/2025/did-methods-wg.html
02:14:34 <pchampin> msporny__: the DID WG is finalizing DID Core 1.1 and DID Resolution
02:14:56 <pchampin> ... we made the concious decision to standardize any DID method in that WG, only the core mechanisms of all DID methods
02:15:07 <pchampin> ... this charter, on the other hand, is focusing on a set of specific DID methods
02:15:23 <pchampin> ... we heard that standard DID methods may help the adoption of DIDs
02:15:50 <pchampin> ... we heard that from some W3C members who were unhappy that the 1st WG didn't do it
02:16:10 <pchampin> ... and also from members who considered that the lack of standard methods was hurting DID adoption
02:16:52 <pchampin> ... the charter has 3 proposed deliverable, with 3 categories of DID methods
02:17:05 <pchampin> ... first one is "ephemeral DID method", which is a bad name for this
02:17:28 <pchampin> ... it is for a method that does not have any external registry, the DID document is generated solely from the content of the DID
02:17:45 <pchampin> ... usually they should be used for a short time; sometimes they can be for longer (with hardware binding)
02:18:03 <pchampin> ... the second one is based on Web technology, with several input documents
02:18:29 <pchampin> ... I don't think we will standardize all of them, but we will take good things from them and standardize probably just one
02:18:35 <pchampin> ... [lists the input documents]
02:19:18 <pchampin> ... the third one is "fully decentralized DID method", such as webdh, peer...
02:19:35 <pchampin> ... there are the 3 general classes of DID methods proposed by the charter
02:19:47 <pchampin> ... the WG will publish a global standard for at least one of each type
02:20:03 <pchampin> ... that's basically it, the rest of it is largely boilerplate
02:20:18 <pchampin> ... liaison, success criteria (2 implementations and test suite), decision process
02:20:36 <Wip>   q?
02:20:43 <shigeya> q+
02:20:46 <pchampin> ... we have some concerns about the charter which we should discuss now
02:20:47 <Wip> ack shigeya
02:21:17 <pchampin> shigeya: I notice that webvh is in both "web-based" and "fully decentralized", is it intended?
02:21:18 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about decentralized "using web technology"
02:21:32 <jay4> q+
02:21:40 <pchampin> s/webvh is/webvh and scid are
02:21:56 <pchampin> msporny__: good point, we didn't know exactly where to classify them
02:22:09 <markus_sabadello> q+
02:22:12 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
02:22:12 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about decentralized "using web technology"
02:22:13 <pchampin> ... note that they are not fully specified yet, there is still work to do
02:22:33 <pchampin> ... it comes down to how we define "web based" and "fully decentralized"
02:23:15 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: did:peer is fully decentralized, and does not use any Web technology, unless we adopt a very broad definition of Web technology
02:23:37 <pchampin> q+
02:23:55 <pchampin> msporny__: it is meant to be very very broad; URIs are Web technology...
02:23:58 <Wip> ack jay
02:24:18 <tidoust> q+
02:24:24 <dariusk> dariusk has joined #did-methods
02:24:31 <denkeni> q+
02:24:33 <pchampin> jay: do you intentionally limit the number of methods to 3, or could it grow to more in the future?
02:24:40 <mouri> mouri has joined #did-methods
02:24:55 <pchampin> msporny__: the charter says that the WG will create at least one of each type, so it may be more than 3
02:25:04 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
02:25:17 <pchampin> ... it is meant to give the WG flexibility on exactatly how many methods it creates
02:25:42 <pchampin> q-
02:25:59 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: my understanding of the language "web technology" is also broad.
02:26:21 <pchampin> ... It does not have to use HTTP.
02:26:38 <Wip> ack tidoust
02:27:06 <pchampin> tidoust: editorial comment: we are usually bad at "expected completion dates", but these ones are extremely optimistic, you might want to connect more
02:27:22 <Wip> ack denkeni
02:27:29 <pchampin> ... also the text is not very clear that it is "one *or more*" method of which category.
02:28:02 <pchampin> denkeni: what about prioritization of the different methods?
02:28:21 <pchampin> ... we have one input document for "ephemeral", but much more for the other ones
02:28:24 <msporny__> q+
02:28:31 <Wip> ack msporny__
02:28:42 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask about selection mechanism
02:28:59 <pchampin> msporny__: to tidoust, the timelines are incredibly aggressive, partly because these work have been incubated for a long time
02:29:07 <shigeya> q+ to ask why categorization is necessary
02:29:28 <pchampin> ... did:key is almost ready, we can publish a FPWD straight away and have 10 implementations
02:29:42 <pchampin> ... to denkeni, the expectation is that the WG will set priorities when starting
02:29:53 <pchampin> ... we expect several subgroups to work on each category
02:30:07 <pchampin> ... I agree that it will be hard to decide what features to include first
02:30:16 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
02:30:16 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask about selection mechanism
02:30:39 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I think it would be good to put in the charter the mechanism for deciding about this
02:30:45 <Wip> q?
02:30:47 <msporny__> q+
02:30:48 <Wip> ack shigeya
02:30:49 <Zakim> shigeya, you wanted to ask why categorization is necessary
02:30:58 <pchampin> ... concensus is going hard to find, we should cogitate about how to do that
02:31:04 <msporny__> q+ to speak to the categories
02:31:17 <msporny__> q+ to speak to "how we choose" each DID Method
02:31:47 <pchampin> shigeya: classifying DID methods is hard
02:32:00 <Wip> ack msporny__
02:32:00 <Zakim> msporny__, you wanted to speak to the categories and to speak to "how we choose" each DID Method
02:32:04 <pchampin> ... maybe we need more specific categories. Where do these 3 categories come from?
02:32:40 <dezell> q+
02:32:47 <pchampin> msporny__: we went through this in the DIF, it took us months to come us with these categories
02:33:00 <pchampin> ... they are not perfect, but they felt easy enough to understand
02:33:03 <chunming> q+
02:33:15 <rayguo> rayguo has joined #did-methods
02:33:29 <pchampin> ... to JoeAndrieu's point, I agree that we should cogitate about how we pick DID methods,
02:33:45 <JoeAndrieu> q+
02:33:48 <pchampin> ... but I'm not sure what language could convey that
02:34:32 <pchampin> ... It could happen that people disagreeing with a given feature will object to the work being moved to Recommendation, or slow down the work
02:34:33 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to suggest language like rank order voting
02:34:44 <pchampin> ... if something is deeply centralized, I would expect some objection
02:35:11 <pchampin> ... I'm guessing we can leave it to WG dynamics to figure out that, with the drawback that it might slow down the WG on controversial languages
02:35:27 <Wip> ack dezell
02:35:31 <pchampin> ... concrete language could be useful at this point, but I don't know what concrete language to put
02:35:50 <pchampin> dezell: a question and a suggestion.
02:36:15 <pchampin> ... question: how controversial is this? I know that it was highly controversial for the DID WG.
02:36:27 <Wip> ack chunming
02:36:53 <pchampin> ... suggestion: we are exposing ourselves to criticism by having the same names in two categories. We should put them somewhere else.
02:37:19 <pchampin> chunming: in the DID methods registries, we have several methods linked to a particular ID system.
02:37:30 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
02:37:30 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to suggest language like rank order voting
02:37:36 <msporny__> q+ to note fully centralized method would probably fail to get adopted.
02:37:42 <pchampin> ... we don't have a category for them. those are quite centralized, do we want to discourage them?
02:38:19 <Wip> ack msporny__
02:38:19 <Zakim> msporny__, you wanted to note fully centralized method would probably fail to get adopted.
02:38:25 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: my proposal for language about the methods is "rank order voting"
02:38:46 <pchampin> msporny__: I like dezell's suggestion to move out the input documents from the categories
02:39:41 <pchampin> ... we should anticipate the possible objections to rank order voting. Some people may formerly object to the #1 choice.
02:40:19 <pchampin> ... to chunming's question: I expect immediate objection for full centralized DID methods
02:40:47 <pchampin> ... but if there is a DID method that has a fair amount of deployment, we should consider putting it in the list
02:41:11 <JoeAndrieu> q+ about unlisted methods
02:41:18 <Wip> q?
02:41:19 <pchampin> ... consider the did:plc (Bluesky), it has several million DIDs out there, but it is not on the list...
02:41:23 <JoeAndrieu> q+
02:41:31 <pchampin> identitywoman: could we just put it on the list? why not?
02:41:56 <pchampin> chunming: it would be good to have a process to bring new DID methods to bring into our group
02:41:57 <pchampin> q+
02:42:00 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
02:42:26 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I think chunming's right, the purpose is not to restrict the WG to this list
02:42:28 <msporny__> q+
02:42:30 <pchampin> ... the language should be improved
02:42:32 <Wip> ack pchampin
02:42:40 <msporny__> scribe+
02:43:15 <denkeni> q+ on the selection criteria and inclusion for more DID methods
02:43:25 <msporny__> pchampin: I think it's good to consider -- not a closed list, but also don't want to give impression that this WG is the only place where DID Methods can be standardized. This group is not creating the only valid DID Methods.
02:43:28 <Wip> ack msporny__
02:43:36 <pchampin> msporny__: +1 to that
02:44:00 <pchampin> ... other things that we would change in the charter: "this is an non-exhaustive list of input documents"
02:44:09 <JoeAndrieu> q+
02:44:09 <pchampin> ... there are IPR issues, though
02:44:37 <pchampin> ... if after 1 year we adopt a new specification, some members may object "I didn't sign up to standardize this method"
02:45:06 <Wip> ack denkeni
02:45:06 <Zakim> denkeni, you wanted to comment on the selection criteria and inclusion for more DID methods
02:45:06 <denkeni> https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-methods/tree/main/selection-criteria
02:45:21 <pchampin> denkeni: above is a link from DIF, about selection criteria
02:45:28 <pchampin> ... this can be used for later reference
02:45:43 <pchampin> ... msporny__ mentioned a long discussion in DIF
02:46:11 <pchampin> ... if we want to standardize methods developed in other places (such as DIF) we need people from these places
02:46:12 <Wip> q+
02:46:29 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
02:46:33 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I appreciate my IPR issue.
02:47:07 <pchampin> ... There are a few things that I don't like about the charter, one of them is that it is up to the group to chose what method will come out of it.
02:47:24 <pchampin> ... One solution would be to name the methods specifically in the charter.
02:47:28 <Wip> ack Wip
02:47:33 <pchampin> ... The FPWD is what triggers the IPR process.
02:48:08 <pchampin> Wip: I expect that people will show up in the group based on whether their favorite DID method is going to be picked up by the group
02:48:09 <msporny__> q+
02:48:09 <Wip> q?
02:48:14 <Wip> ack msporny__
02:48:36 <pchampin> msporny__: well, the way things get done in WG is when people do the work
02:48:42 <pchampin> ... this is a natural selection process
02:48:45 <chunming> s/a particular ID system./a particular ID system. Another question is, is there any chance for other DID methods in the registry to be brought into discussion of this WG?/
02:49:08 <pchampin> ... the rank order voting is a first signal
02:49:22 <pchampin> ... I like JoeAndrieu's answer to the IPR issue that it will trigger when the FPWD is done.
02:49:33 <Wip> q?
02:49:40 <pchampin> ... So the charter feels well balanced to me.
02:50:09 <pchampin> Wip: we have until 12:30, what's our goal.
02:50:12 <JoeAndrieu> q+
02:50:20 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
02:50:26 <pchampin> ... Is there consensus on the charter? Objections?
02:50:34 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I do have a number of issues.
02:51:15 <pchampin> ... I would like the output DID methods to be explicitly named, to make IPR clearer.
02:51:20 <jay4> nick jay
02:51:43 <pchampin> ... I also don't like that the group is chartered for several methods. We had this discussion in the DID WG.
02:51:53 <Wip> q?
02:51:57 <msporny__> q+
02:51:59 <pchampin> ... Finally, I don't think any web-based DID method fits the bill for DIDs.
02:52:00 <Wip> ack msporny__
02:52:26 <pchampin> msporny__: which of these objections will lead to formal objections on the charter?
02:52:57 <pchampin> q+
02:53:22 <pchampin> msporny__: which of these objections will lead to formal objections on the charter?
02:53:30 <markus_sabadello> q+
02:53:44 <pchampin> ... would it address it if we named exactly one DID method in each category?
02:54:17 <pchampin> ... Or does the FPWD process address your IPR issue?
02:54:23 <Wip> ack pchampin
02:54:27 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: we both had a long discussion yesterday, I'm still thinking about it, so I don't have a strong response now.
02:55:01 <JoeAndrieu> q+
02:55:52 <pchampin> pchampin: the WG is not going to rubber stamp the input documents anyway, so naming only one does not even solve the problem
02:55:54 <Wip> ack markus_sabadello
02:56:18 <pchampin> markus_sabadello: to comment on the concern about multiple DID methods in the WG risking to contaminate each other
02:56:42 <pchampin> ... not everyone in the WG has to work on all DID methods, there can be some logical separation in the group, alternating schedule...
02:56:58 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
02:57:30 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: regarding IPR, it is healthier in the W3C process to get FOs from the AC now rather than after 3 years of work
02:57:55 <pchampin> ... we are avoiding them by not naming the methods now
02:57:57 <msporny__> q+
02:57:57 <chunming> present+
02:58:02 <Wip> ack msporny__
02:58:22 <pchampin> msporny__: the way to do that would be to name those methods explicitly
02:58:53 <pchampin> ... I agree that waiting for FOs is not great if we anticipate they are coming
02:59:10 <pchampin> ... do we believe that the WG will work on anything else?
02:59:25 <Wip> q?
02:59:33 <pchampin> ... I'm hesitant to say that the WG will happily adopt any new DID method that comes later, there is momentum when the group starts
02:59:54 <pchampin> q+
03:00:12 <Wip> ack pchampin
03:00:13 <pchampin> ... It is possible, but not an easy thing
03:00:39 <msporny__> pchampin: A suggestion -- could we name one main input document in each category -- and then list a few others as good for input documents.
03:00:40 <msporny__> q+
03:00:40 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to suggest more time
03:00:42 <denkeni> +1 to pchampin
03:01:22 <msporny__> pchampin: Maybe we have documents popping out in different places -- second category might be difficult (web-based) -- maybe this is a good middle ground?
03:01:28 <Wip> ack msporny__
03:01:41 <pchampin> msporny__: that is where we started, and it quickly got ugly
03:01:57 <pchampin> ... there are people with competing choices
03:02:09 <pchampin> ... this is actually the best we could get to
03:02:12 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
03:02:12 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to suggest more time
03:02:28 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: +1 to the note of the potential difficulty of getting a new method in
03:02:57 <msporny__> q+
03:03:00 <pchampin> ... deadlines are sometimes used to cut short discussions, so adding more time to the charter can help
03:03:00 <Wip> ack msporny__
03:03:30 <pchampin> msporny__: I agree, but some AC reps don't like long charters
03:03:39 <pchampin> ... rechartering is always an option
03:04:23 <pchampin> ... 2 years is the standard duration nowadays
03:04:28 <Wip> q?
03:04:31 <denkeni> q+ to suggest to pick one ephemeral DID Method and one fully decentralized DID Method, leave others for parallel task forces
03:04:36 <Wip> ack denkeni
03:04:36 <Zakim> denkeni, you wanted to suggest to pick one ephemeral DID Method and one fully decentralized DID Method, leave others for parallel task forces
03:05:17 <pchampin> denkeni: following pchampin's suggestion, it seems that there would be more consensus about picking a main method for "ephemeral" and "fully decentralized"
03:05:28 <pchampin> ... then go for parallel work for "web-based"
03:06:00 <pchampin> ... this would help us fullfill the promise of delivering 3
03:06:42 <pchampin> Wip: to JoeAndrieu's 3rd point, about web-based DID method, what can be done?
03:07:07 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: as long as there is domain binding, we don't have a decentralized identifier.
03:07:17 <pchampin> ... and without domain binding, this is not a web-based DID methods.
03:07:41 <pchampin> ... We do have another kind of identifiers: Controlled Identifiers (CID -- I think the "C" stands for "centralized")
03:07:52 <msporny__> q+ kaliya
03:07:52 <Wip> q?
03:07:53 <pchampin> ... If anything, this should be part of CID 2.0
03:07:58 <identitywoman> +q
03:08:00 <Wip> ack kaliya
03:08:05 <Wip> ack identitywoman
03:08:53 <pchampin> identitywoman: if I want to create a DID based on a blockchain, I still need to pay some money
03:08:57 <msporny__> q+
03:08:59 <jay4> q+ to ask the decision process for clear understanding
03:09:01 <Wip> ack msporny__
03:09:06 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: it is not about paying money, it is about paying it to a blessed party
03:09:29 <Wip> ack jay4
03:09:42 <pchampin> msporny__: IIUC, the only way out of a FO from Legendary Requirements is to not have web-based methods in the charter, right?
03:09:47 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: currently yes.
03:09:48 <Wip> ack jay
03:09:48 <Zakim> jay, you wanted to ask the decision process for clear understanding
03:10:42 <msporny__> q+
03:10:47 <Wip> ack msporny__
03:10:48 <jay4> ack me
03:11:02 <pchampin> jay4: I want to know what the best way is to select the appropriate DID method?
03:11:21 <pchampin> msporny__: if your question is "are we going to categorize all of the 200+ methods in the registry", the answer is no.
03:11:44 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to mention did traits and rubric
03:11:45 <pchampin> ... if we were to do that, we would be asking for the people registering the DID method to do the categorizing.
03:12:05 <pchampin> ... there is some work at DIF around "DID traits". Also JoeAndrieu's work on the DID Rubric.
03:12:17 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
03:12:17 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to mention did traits and rubric
03:12:23 <pchampin> ... but not one of this WG's tasks.
03:12:45 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: +1, DID traits would help us categorize DID methods.
03:13:05 <pchampin> ... We have had good progress on the DID traits and the DID rubric.
03:13:28 <pchampin> ... So that DID traits could be used to filter and sort the DID methods registry.
03:13:57 <pchampin> ... Wip has been driving this work in our company.
03:14:31 <msporny__> q+
03:14:34 <Wip> ack msporny__
03:14:37 <pchampin> Wip: we are a system almost ready. The harder part will be to integrate it with the did-extension registry.
03:14:52 <pchampin> msporny__: to go back on the list of objections
03:15:04 <pchampin> ... we may be ok on the IPR thing (TBD)
03:15:17 <pchampin> ... the web-based objection is a hard one.
03:16:01 <pchampin> ... about last one (multiple methods), the rationale was that there is a limited amount of people working on these topics, and a limit amount of staff resource
03:16:11 <JoeAndrieu> q+
03:16:37 <pchampin> ... those are the driving reasons; in an ideal world we could split it, although I'm not convinced that splitting the expertise is the way to go
03:17:03 <pchampin> ... I do agree that the negative outcome may be to give the impression that this is the only place where DID methods can be standardized
03:17:24 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
03:17:42 <pchampin> ... based on that, are those concerns leading to FOs
03:17:55 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: not sure yet, actually some of your explanations made things worse.
03:18:09 <pchampin> ... I don't think it is good for a handful of expert to decide which methods to build.
03:18:21 <msporny__> q+
03:18:24 <Wip> ack msporny__
03:18:24 <identitywoman> q+
03:18:41 <pchampin> msporny__: one of the things that gives value to our work is the sharing of ideas.
03:19:12 <Wip> ack identitywoman
03:19:17 <pchampin> ... what you see as a negative I see as a positive.
03:19:35 <pchampin> identitywoman: one challenge of decentralized identifiers is legibility.
03:19:55 <pchampin> ... do institutions and groups who may adopt this technology understand it?
03:20:07 <pchampin> ... one of the things this WG is trying to address is legibility.
03:20:14 <JoeAndrieu> q+ the problem isn't more perspectives. it's the need to get votes from enough votes from supporters
03:20:20 <JoeAndrieu> q+
03:20:31 <pchampin> ... for centralized institution who may fully or partly adopt these technologies, this is useful.
03:20:40 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
03:21:14 <msporny__> q+
03:21:15 <pchampin> ... having a group of people working on legibility for multiple DID methods is a good thing
03:21:18 <Wip> ack msporny__
03:21:29 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I agree that having multiple people sharing ideas is good.
03:21:49 <JoeAndrieu> q+
03:21:50 <identitywoman> Q+
03:21:55 <pchampin> ... What I think is the bad things is votes. I've been contacted to people proposing to support my DID method if I supported theirs.
03:22:31 <pchampin> msporny__: I agree, but I don't see an alternative. Splitting the group is not solving the problem.
03:23:04 <Wip> ack JoeAndrieu
03:23:11 <pchampin> ... A single group will have higher chance of success.
03:23:32 <pchampin> JoeAndrieu: I appreciate that you don't like the splitting, but you are actually making the point that it is a better option.
03:23:36 <Wip> ack identitywoman
03:24:12 <pchampin> identitywoman: I was in another WG meeting this morning, and they got the name of Decentralized Identifiers wrong.
03:24:32 <pchampin> ... Not that it is our job, but we should think about clear communication of technology.
03:24:52 <pchampin> ... Beyond standardizing these things, let's think about making things known.
03:25:23 <msporny__> pchampin: At this point we ave a charter proposal, all issues but one are closed. Only remaining issue is more of discussion that call sfor action.
03:26:28 <msporny__> pchampin: a number of isues were opened during this meeting, so we have checked all the boxes to send the charter to the AC review now -- I need green light from people on team; heard about changes during call right now -- and then I'm a bit concerned now because depending on how deep changes are made, we did not invalidate horizonta review that happened before?
03:26:49 <msporny__> pchampin: If we change order - move input documents into separate place will cause an issue. Minor change, not concerning.
03:27:17 <msporny__> pchampin: What else do we need to do?
03:27:26 <msporny__> Manu: Ranked choice voting mention?
03:27:41 <msporny__> pchampin: I can push button and send to AC Review
03:28:09 <msporny__> Wip: There are possible objections on the charter.
03:29:24 <Wip> q?
03:29:28 <msporny__> pchampin: Joe, we've had the discussion on the charter before so I think the disagreement is clear, can write that up to W3C Council to see if objection stands or is overridden. I think we can do that quite quickly after AC Review -- if this is the only objection we get, it might move more quickly.
03:29:41 <msporny__> Wip: This is the end of this meeting, we won't be meeting after lunch.
03:29:43 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
03:29:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/10-did-methods-minutes.html pchampin
03:30:07 <Wip> rrsagent, make logs public
04:32:34 <manu_> manu_ has joined #did-methods
05:45:28 <manu_> manu_ has joined #did-methods
05:58:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #did-methods
07:51:55 <manu_> manu_ has joined #did-methods
08:03:31 <manu_> manu_ has joined #did-methods
08:04:11 <pchampin> meeting: DID Methods WG Charter Discussion
08:04:20 <pchampin> chair: Wip
08:06:21 <pchampin> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/46fa22d3-d716-4e61-b1bd-53b4212f2f06/
08:06:25 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
08:06:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/11/10-did-methods-minutes.html pchampin
08:23:50 <manu_> manu_ has joined #did-methods
12:02:38 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #did-methods
13:04:11 <manu_> manu_ has joined #did-methods