Mozilla and Google Objections Overruled on “Decentralized Identifiers” by W3C

Ok; that's my mistake on the Evan one.

But here's my counter: when it comes to web standards like this, I am fully prepared and willing to delegate my opinion to Mozilla (and a lesser but still positive degree, Google). The W3 (ok you want to be pedantic; W3C; talk about SNR) additionally has a ton of other extremely mature member organizations; Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Cloudflare, if even one of these organizations had their name anywhere on this spec I'd give it the time of day. I work at one of them; I've worked for two in the past; I know the people, they're extremely smart and well-intentioned.

I don't agree with your statement that its worth discounting the professionalism and expertise of some member organizations just because you had one third-hand experience in an entirely unrelated organization of some no-name member roadblocking a proposal because of... market interests. Market interests?! Of course that would be a concern! Proposals need to serve the members of the org. The members of the org are, mostly, for-profit organizations! I'm blown away at the dissonance it takes to complain about non-professional SNR, then immediately follow-up with hearsay and supposition.

But, ok, maybe not Web2 Big Tech. Maybe Web3 big tech? Where's the Ethereum Foundation? They're a W3C member org! Block/Square? They're getting very deep into crypto right now; also a member org; silent. Coinbase? Just an exchange, but a member. I mean, the list keeps going on.

I've read the spec. I would not claim to fully understand it, but like Mozilla, it feels abstract and very short on even high-level use-cases. I also think TBL's response signals that's by-design; and I think that's a weak response because ultimately if the organizations who do develop tangible use-cases fly-in-the-night four years from now, the spec will become an unnecessary vestige of the web, like so many before it, while the organizations who actually put in the work and deliver value to Real Humans ignore it (or worse, are forced to keep the dying-but-not-dead vestige on life support) (its not the W3C/TBL who pays the six figure engineer salaries that maintain this shit, its their member orgs, and not even the ones who proposed and approved this).

I also feel, weakly but still prescient, that while the W3C is relatively egalitarian, we can't ignore the politics. This was GOOGLE and MOZILLA who raised concerns (not to mention one anonymous org). TBL can object, and W3C can set the spec, but at the end of the day it will become a vestige even if the people involved with this spec do their best to make it happen, if Big Tech isn't on-board. I'm not, then, asserting that fighting big tech is never worthwhile; I'm just asserting that the W3C probably isn't the best abstraction layer to fight the fight.

So yes: I will criticize. And I'll hyperbolize: the fact that the W3C has hundreds of member organizations, from implementors to thinkers to for-profits and non-profits, and they're willing to overrule real concerns from multiple established and respected members in-favor-of a grocery list of flag-planters, half of which DON'T EVEN HAVE LEGITIMATE WEBSITES, is an embarrassment.

But, fortunately, probably, one that everyone will soon forget about.

Fair; I just scanned the list and saw it was associated with a company named Evan GmbH; I didn't, and still don't, feel it was worthwhile to investigate further; but fine, they're a no-name crypto org with a template website promising to provide the technical and legal framework for the future of the decentralized market economy based on blockchain technology. I'm really excited about their promise that "Digital Identities turn goods into active and autonomous participants in business relationships." And Gartner named them a "Cool Business" in 2020, watch out for these guys I'm sure they'll still be around in four years.

That's up to the 'method' part, which is what all the fuss is about.

Ok, so if I show my did to someone's they're going to reach out to the method and ask for verification. How does the method place know that the person using the did is the right person? I assume it's some kind of federation? They send me over to the method place, I authenticate, and get kicked back?

I think this is an unfair generalization. The core of the DID spec was developed by the folks at the Internet Identity Workshop, who have been discussing identity far longer than blockchain even existed.

Some of their members (e.g. Sovrin, Evernym) only very reluctantly included blockchain as a piece of the solution, and only then when they saw how certain aspects of blockchain were desirable for credentials and revocations without a central, controlling cabal.

Using Sovrin as an example, they did not create a token sale, NFT, or defi anything, which I think speaks volumes about their motives. Instead, they created a non-profit that was funded through traditional means.

IMO some of these founding members are legitimately trying to solve the very difficult problem of digital identity (including privacy, decentralization, and compatibility).