Add brief historical perspective in acknowledgements.

[msporny]

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

[ChristopherA]

+1

[iherman]

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]

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

[talltree]

Manu, good job summarizing a lot of history in a short space.

[TallTed]

One tweak, to broaden the influential "tech and specs" which I think includes more than PGP, though that may be all that gets called out here.

[peacekeeper]

Looks good, here are 2 small suggestions.

[iherman]

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

List of resolutions:

• Resolution No. 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.

View the transcript

3. historical PR

See github pull request #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

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?

[rxgrant]

I'm requesting these changes.

[iherman]

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

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

5. DID core issues

See github pull request #792, #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]

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

[TallTed]

Noticed it after you merged it...

Suggested change

	The Working Group extends deep appreciation and heartfelt thanks to our Chairs
	The Working Group extends deep appreciation and heartfelt thanks to our Chairs,