Remove at risk marker for `evidence` property

[msporny]

This PR is an attempt to partially address issue #1437 by removing the at risk issue marker for the evidence property.

There are three registered specifications in the VC Specifications Directory that use the extension point. Additionally, the IMS Global Open Badges v3.0 specification, which was just ratified (requires multiple implementations) as a Final specification on May 27th, uses the extension point.

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-06-05

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

5.3. Removing at risk issue markers.

See github pull request vc-data-model#1495.

See github pull request vc-data-model#1496.

See github pull request vc-data-model#1497.

See github pull request vc-data-model#1498.

Manu Sporny: 1495, 1496, 197, 1498, each one of these either reserves terms (confidenceMethod, renderMethod), don't have time to finish them but will reserve terms.
… remove terms of use.
… had it in the spec before, not enough implementations, keep term reserved but remove section from spec.
… for all others, enough implementations based on criteria previously agreed on to keep them in spec.
… refresh service and evidence kept in spec, reserve confidenceMethod and renderMethod.

Brent Zundel: the course this group agreed to at the beginning on extension points, agreed that if implementers exist using these extensions we will keep them in the spec.
… these PRs are an expression of that intent, at this point it would be inappropriate to challenge the intent.
… if you have qualms about the PRs it would be inappropriate to be about their course.
… all are welcome to change their mind but hopefully people stay the course here.

Ivan Herman: my issue is timing not intent, as I said at the beginning of this call, the charter/proposal that goes out says that there is an exception for terms that are at risk but in the spec.
… if I go out to the AC now and there is no at risk feature in the spec we have a problem.
… propose we agree with the PRs but do not merge them before the vote is out at the AC.

Manu Sporny: +1, I think we can wait, there will just need to be some maintenance on the PRs.

Brent Zundel: any other PRs we need to look at.

[msporny]

Per the call today, the Chair noted that we no longer need to hold off on merging this PR.

[msporny]

Editorial, multiple reviews, no changes requested, merge hold lifted, no objections, merging.