[PROPOSED WORK ITEM] Break out use-cases for VC-[HTTP-]API as distinct repo with Editors
Closed this issue · 9 comments
New Work Item Proposal
vc-http-api use cases as a distinct repo/work-item
Include Link to Abstract or Draft
Here's the working file the group has been using for weeks:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-u0_Ub6feiX6DH3jXFJFjt6n3CwKGpkmC3VISqDkWL4/edit#
List Owners
Primary editor: Eric Schuh (Legendary Requirements), @eric-schuh
Secondary editor: Juan Caballero (Spruce Systems), @bumblefudge
Work Item Questions
Answer the following questions in order to document how you are meeting the requirements for a new work item at the W3C Credentials Community Group. Please note if this work item supports the Silicon Valley Innovation program or another government or private sector project.
- Explain what you are trying to do using no jargon or acronyms.
Simply want the use-case documents to have a distinct respec repo and git history from the API's documents.
- How is it done today, and what are the limits of the current practice?
The API working group's current documentation is limited to markdown files; building the use-case document could happen in the repo, but we feel that both weekly meetings and github-based discussions would both be clearer and easier for more people to track and participate in with the use-cases happening elsewhere in parallel.
- What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
At the moment, not much! We're hoping to make a use-case document similar to the VC use-cases doc, and inherent some of the ReSpec JS tooling that autogenerated the tables and linked indexes.
- How are you involving participants from multiple skill sets and global locations in this work item? (Skill sets: technical, design, product, marketing, anthropological, and UX. Global locations: the Americas, APAC, Europe, Middle East.)
We welcome inputs from the "business side of the house" to help us refine and iterate these use cases!
- What actions are you taking to make this work item accessible to a non-technical audience?
We can keep the google doc if it helps!
Sounds like a great idea. Keeping it accessible via a google doc is important. You may also want to learn from the VC-EDU group on making use case work inclusive to folks not on github. @kayaelle & @kimdhamilton would probably have comments/suggest others to comment.
adding @mprorock as he is co-chair, and removing @kimdhamilton because I think she has mistakenly been added. If you meant to specifically add her, apologies.
I did not tag Kim on purpose, but thanks for checking! I think last time this happened TallTed pointed out some kind of repo-wide configuration or setting for default reviewers
I did not tag Kim on purpose, but thanks for checking! I think last time this happened TallTed pointed out some kind of repo-wide configuration or setting for default reviewers
Last time, it was a PR, which auto-requests reviews from CODEOWNERS for the repo, which I updated at that time.
This time, it's a PROPOSED WORK ITEM, which auto-assigns based on the template, for which I've now put in PR #208, to remove @kimdhamilton and add @mprorock.
No objections here, looks great! Good to see some new names contributing too.
This time, it's a PROPOSED WORK ITEM, which auto-assigns based on the template, for which I've now put in PR #208, to remove @kimdhamilton and add @mprorock.
A gentleman, a scholar, and a team player to boot! Thanks again!
I have added this work item to the 9/21 CCG call agenda to review+discuss with the community. Would the owners please attend this meeting. Thank you. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2021Sep/0074.html
Per discussion at the 9/21 CCG call, this work item has entered the 7 day review period. If anyone has concerns about this becoming a work item, it should be raised prior to EOD Sept 29, 2021. If no concerns are raised, this will move to a work item at that time.
This repo has been transferred and is ready to go here: https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-api-use-cases.