[OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group Charter - Approval Request

Thu May 28 03:52:03 UTC 2026

Thanks Gail

This is Yes from me.

I have left minor editorial comments, which can be ignored if it's too late.

One comment on Gail's response:

*>Right now, we suspect it may end up being 3 cochairs*
 3 co-chairs might not work under the 50% OIDF / 50% ISO rule. Might need
to be 2, 4, or 6?

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 6:46 PM Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org> wrote:

> Specs Council
>
> *We are in the 15 day voting period by the Specs Council, starting May
> 24th ending on or before June 8th.*
>
> With the clarification exchange with Bjorn and Dima in mind:
>
>    - Ignore vice chair term
>    - Copy change from “OIDF and ISO” to “OIDF *or *ISO*” *to accurately
>    reflect the joint WG intent, can you please cast your vote
>    - OIDF process document applies which allows for up to 5 cochairs,
>    however the new WG may restrain itself to fewer cochairs in order to secure *balance
>    *between the two WGs forming this new WG. Balance is a top priority
>    for the participants. Right now we suspect it may end up being 3 cochairs
>    that will deliver balance but there are currently 6 candidates likely to
>    take part in a poll which participants in informal joint WG will operate to
>    help expedite and facilitate consensus going into the first new WG meeting.
>
>
> Please kindly cast your vote on the Charter:
>
>    - Yes
>    - No (and reason in line with Process document)
>    - [No vote yet - Clarification]
>
>
> The Specs council has the full 15 days, but if the specs council is able
> to agree more quickly that would be much appreciated. If the specs
> council can make a swift decision it will help joint WG participants to
> complete their internal reviews so that the June 12th meeting can go ahead.
>
> Note: Any material change to the Charter from the Specs council will need
> to go back to the joint WG for review, which may in turn lead to further
> changes and a second round of Specs Council review.
>
> *From: *Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 27, 2026 at 2:08 AM
> *To: *Dima Postnikov <dima at postnikov.net>
> *Cc: *Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com>, jheenan_authletefwd <
> joseph at authlete.com>, openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net <
> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>, Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>, Mike
> Leszcz <mike.leszcz at oidf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation
> Working Group Charter - Approval Request
>
> Hi Dima,
> My mistake. Yes, the intent is either SDO so the text should probably be
> changed to "either OIDF or ISO".
>
> Yes, you can ignore the reference to "Vice-Chair".
>
> Kind Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dima Postnikov <dima at postnikov.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:50 AM
> *To:* Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org>
> *Cc:* Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com>; jheenan_authletefwd <
> joseph at authlete.com>; openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net <
> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>; Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>; Mike
> Leszcz <mike.leszcz at oidf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation
> Working Group Charter - Approval Request
>
> Thanks Bjorn
>
> So, we can probably ignore "Vice Chair" in the OIDF context.
>
> *> (whether Chair or Vice Chairs) must be representative of OIDF **and*
> * ISO,*
> I want to confirm whether each chair candidate is only eligible if they
> already serve as a representative of *both* ISO and OIDF.  Or we can have *one
> of each* to satisfy this requirement.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:37 AM Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Dima,
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> The working procedure was initially written without a specific SDO in mind
> to document the intended working relationship between the participant from
> the different SDOs. The reason for referencing OIDF and ISO was to
> highlight the joint nature of this effort and main stakeholders
> participating regardless of what SDO was chosen where the work would be
> performed.
>
> For the new OIDF WG, the OIDF Process document applies. The short answer
> to your question is that a "Chair" needs to meet the requirements of a
> Contributor. I'm not clear what the "other way" means in this context.
>
> The number of OIDF WG co-chairs normally varies between 2-4 for a variety
> of reason (WG scope and knowledge need, WG work load, time zones,
> individual aspirations, etc.) so I don't believe there's a valid argument
> that it should only be 2 chairs. Again, the working procedure was written
> without a specific SDO in mind and the intent of the sentence referenced
> was to ensure that each stakeholder had (at least) a representive in a
> leadership role to foster trust between the main stakeholders when starting
> this work.
>
> I don't recal if any OIDF WG has Vice-Chair as oppose to Co-Chairs. This
> varies with other SDOs of course.
>
> Finally, the working procedure could probably be further refined to only
> apply to OIDF but, in the essence of time, the choice was to minimize the
> WG approval time to allow the technical work to formally start.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dima Postnikov <dima at postnikov.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:59 PM
> *To:* Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* jheenan_authletefwd <joseph at authlete.com>;
> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net <
> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>; Gail Hodges <gail at oidf.org>; Mike
> Leszcz <mike.leszcz at oidf.org>; Bjorn Hjelm <bjorn.hjelm at oidf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OIDFSC] Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation
> Working Group Charter - Approval Request
>
> Thanks, Bjorn and Joseph.
>
> The review process seems to be quite rigid, but it's a good starting point.
>
> Can I clarify a couple of things here:
>
>
> *> Chair(s) selection process (SDO specific). The functional leaders of
> the group (whether Chair or Vice Chairs) must be representative of OIDF and
> ISO, *
> Does it prevent ISO members who are not currently OIDF WG participants
> from becoming co-chairs? And the other way?
>
>
>
> *> for example if there is no consensus from both groups on the chairs and
> vice chairs, ISO members could choose to elect one chair/vice chair whilst
> OIDF members also elect one chair/vice chair.*
> Not sure if we need more than 2 co-chairs, but should it be 50%?
>
> Also, do we have a concept of "WG vice chair" in OIDF?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 9:52 AM Bjorn Hjelm via specs-council <
> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
> Please highlight any proposed changes to help with the comment resolution.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> On May 26, 2026, at 9:36 AM, Joseph Heenan <joseph at authlete.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi all
>
> Just for completeness for the archives, here’s the google doc attached in
> word format.
>
> Positive responses would be appreciated if possible please!
>
> Many thanks
>
> Joseph
>
>
> <Digital Credentials Harmonized Presentation Working Group Charter.docx>
>
> On 24 May 2026, at 14:04, Bjorn Hjelm <blhjelm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a request for formal approval of the charter (and working
> procedures) for a new working group, Digital Credentials Harmonized
> Presentation Working Group, to support the joint initiative by ISO/IEC
> JTC1/SC 17 (ISO) WG10 and OpenID Foundation (OIDF) DCP WG to harmonize
> their respective credential exchange protocol for in-person and online.
>
> The proposed charter can be found at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPVuhBaAaMGH7gzJoZWZLKRC8EwsuhILQA7lYy8zqg8/edit?tab=t.0
> .
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20260528/4aba5485/attachment-0001.htm>