Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New section on environmental impacts #27
New section on environmental impacts #27
Changes from 9 commits
850d182
c7355c9
7e4093e
eb86210
7561e14
29e2d39
b508dbb
c961d1f
cbb379b
78abe49
a1e9ee4
1e8fce6
2fb6306
5fe1f17
3064e2f
d65ed98
4820791
b13b97a
22c6943
90d6e16
e4b620c
a0a3a10
0fa5901
6c798be
93870c3
02317a8
5528479
f578a20
23a2273
989686b
3839b6c
1174832
6f51ec9
06a563a
67b5c83
9053df0
a476381
b0d199f
34b7d3a
f5b3c95
6bf9c01
2ee868d
2d82297
1310b0c
2e296c1
35e8147
171176c
bfe1e39
961c3cf
e046d08
b2f7768
4e2b768
eee9e0c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@brentzundel agree - attempted to do that with this section, but i think there are improvements that could be made to wording
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should consider reframing this section to address the issue from an empirical perspective, for example:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed - I think the trick is to fully acknowledge some of the concerns from folks looking at DIDs, but show clearly where we think there are tradeoffs that merit a developer picking one approach vs another. e.g. DIDs engaged in use cases related to requirements for strong personal privacy and control vs other cases
Going to be taking a pass on a rewrite of this whole section today
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Showing tradeoffs that you think merit one thing or another is inappropriate for guiding implementations, and is appropriate for the Rubric work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Referring to the Rubric -- including its developing metrics/focuses regarding energy consumption and security features and other features, and the relations between these (which may include notes like "barring special attention, a change in the level of this benefit/cost will typically cause a parallel/inverse/multiple change in the level of that benefit/cost") -- all of which will play a role in deployment choices a/k/a method adoption -- is appropriate for the Implementation Guide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Securing Decentralized Identifier Systems" is defined in the spec as https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#dfn-verifiable-data-registry and we should avoid inventing new words for the same concept.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I support the guidance that one should give consideration to the environmental impacts of any system you build. However, that example is inappropriate as it does not meet any standard of objective review. Rather, it is a political an ideological attack on PoW systems, an attack which is inappropriate for the W3C and this working group to make.
In the same manner, we could demand that people consider the ethical implications of Proof of Stake algorithms which clearly reinforce existing power dynamics leading to a runaway cascade in which the larger, vested players establish an unassailable and therefore, undemocratic authority.
IMO, neither of these are appropriate positions for the W3C and the DID WG to take, precisely because it is not a technical recommendation but a political one.
If some part of the W3C were to develop standards for evaluating the environment impact of technologies, and were willing to apply that standard across the board to all existing and propose technologies, I would welcome that objective, fair framework for discussion.
This is not that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good call out. Will make some adjustments
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@csuwildcat that would be great. I have adjusted the PR to avoid calling out particular approaches (as obviously these can change over time). Might be optimal if we call out that similar to making assessments on energy usage and comparing those against other benefits of an approach, we should absolutely make assessments related to potential privacy and security over time and that human rights concerns should outweigh others.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is really outside the bounds of what a protocol implementer should be asked to do by a developer guide. Additionally, every DID method imaginable (besides self-resolving ones like did:key) will change in consumption and behavior over time, so to ask people to do running third-party energy assessments is particularly strange.
To illustrate how strange this is, imagine you asked everyone using BitTorrent as the basis for file transfer to do an environmental report on all BitTorrent servers, traffic, and resource usage on machines across the world. We should not be injecting ourselves into the use of systems like this, imo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
<3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@csuwildcat @selfissued does Microsoft have any similar initiatives for ION?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
<3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Consumed energy is not an appropriate call out here.
I tried to replace that language with "environmental impact" but then the entire sentence didn't make sense.