[Atp] Re: Temperature Check on Charter Scoping

[Willem Dantuma <[e-mail]>]

I think the second strongest driver for the use of ATproto next to the
protocol itself is the use of did:plc. So standardizing the protocol
without defining a small! set of blessed did's would give us a false start.

In the draft charter text the URI scheme is already put in scope  ( so we
probably already conforming to did as the identifier scheme ?),  From an
implementer viewpoint I prefer the set of (did) methods I need to implement
should be as limited as possible.

If the blessed methods should be covered by a separate charter/WG is open
for discussion.


Willem

Op wo 26 nov 2025 om 02:19 schreef Bryan Newbold <bryan=
[e-mail]>:

> Hi folks,
>
> Right around the BoF there were a few discussions around charter scope,
> and since then there has been a detailed thread about the interface to
> identity systems. Beyond that there has not been as much debate about scope.
>
> I want to try and get a temperature check as to whether this means folks
> are broadly satisfied with the proposed scope and draft charter, or if the
> identity question is singular enough that we need to hash that out before
> considering other dimensions.
>
> If you have other thoughts please chime in! In particular these can be at
> an abstract level ("what should folks be able to accomplish with the output
> of the WG"), or a bit lower level ("really seems like part A can't be
> specified without piece B").
>
> We are hoping to starting converging on a more firm charter proposal in
> the next couple weeks. Some folks may be traveling this week (smooth
> travels if that is you), so I may poke again next week.
>
> --bryan
> _______________________________________________
> Atp mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>