RE: No Web Payments IG meeting 16 November

Nick wrote:
>Forgive me if this has already been answered elsewhere on the Credentials CG, but I am
>wondering how a task force under the WPIG would not have the same presumption of 
>non-neutrality?

Just to clarify, I believe that some people* have indicated that doing the discussions on the existing Credentials CG would be non-neutral.  

So far, I haven't heard that anyone thinks that discussion on WPIG would be non-neutral.  

*I have no idea who those people are.

Best regards,
David

-----Original Message-----
From: nshearer@apple.com [mailto:nshearer@apple.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:53 AM
To: Manu Sporny
Cc: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: No Web Payments IG meeting 16 November


> On Nov 14, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/13/2015 05:18 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> It does not seem to me we need a call on Monday. All this can go into 
>> the proposal:
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/Credent
>> ials
> 
> Looks like I'm not being clear. Let me try again:
> 
> There is currently no workable proposal based on feedback from W3C and 
> the Credentials CG. The proposed paths forward are in direct conflict 
> with each other.
> 
> So, there is nothing to talk about on November 23rd unless we come to 
> a compromise. I don't want to try to come up with that compromise on 
> November 23rd as it delays the discussion more than necessary. We have 
> the information we need to have the discussion on Monday:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/Verifiab
> leClaimsTaskForce
> 
> At a minimum, we need the W3C staff contact (you), the Chairs, and 
> other concerned parties on the call to make sure that there is 
> agreement on a compromise path forward before sending it back to the WPIG on the 23rd.
> 
> In an attempt to be even more clear:
> 
> * You've asserted that a new Community Group is the best path forward.
> * The Credentials CG has rejected that path citing various  concerns 
> (re-creating what we already have in the CG, presumption of  
> non-neutrality, increased workload, delays, etc.)

Forgive me if this has already been answered elsewhere on the Credentials CG, but I am wondering how a task force under the WPIG would not have the same presumption of non-neutrality?

> * The WPIG seems indifferent on the path, as long as the work gets done.
> 
> So, we need to see if you (and the people you are channeling) are okay 
> with the proposal above before we raise it with the WPIG because it 
> doesn't do anyone any good if we propose something that's just going 
> to be immediately vetoed.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) 
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice 
> https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2015 17:37:28 UTC