Re: Suggested Revisions to Web Payments Charter

To the "Dependencies or Liaisons" Section of the Charter I've added. They
would ideal to invite to the Paris workshop.

Vendor-Oriented Networks:
* World Chambers Network http://www.worldchambers.com/
* International Chamber of Commerce http://www.iccwbo.org/
* World Association for Small and Medium Enterprises
http://www.wasmeinfo.org/About.htm

Consumer-Oriented Networks:
* International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN)
https://icpen.org/
* econsumer.gov http://www.econsumer.gov (working to enhance consumer
confidence in e-commerce)

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> I've edited the "Decision Process" section of the Charter to be more
> precise:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/WebPaymentsCommunityGroupCharterProposal#Decision_process
>
> I've not changed the process that was there, but have reduced uncertainty
> about the ways decisions would be arrived at, and how we get unstuck in
> cases where we're stuck. Otherwise, these edits are self-explanatory.
>
> Any issues with these edits?
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've made some edits to the "Scope of Work" section:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/WebPaymentsCommunityGroupCharterProposal#Scope_of_Work
>>
>> Highlights & discussion:
>>
>> 1. "exchanges of value" changed to "financial exchanges", since value has
>> so many interpretations.  On this point I have a question, following from
>> an email on this list by Martin Hepp on 31 Dec: "The textual definitions in
>> GoodRelations will soon be polished to reflect the fact that the
>> compensation for a certain offer can include non-monetary assets (e.g.
>> barter trade)."
>> http://ebusiness-unibw.org
>> /pipermail/goodrelations/2013-December/000544.html
>> Question: Would the Web Payments spec potentially handle barter?
>> Initially my hunch was that "choice of currency" in a transaction could not
>> include chickens or hours-of-effort as the units? But wait a moment:
>>
>> * If A can use WP to send money to B, for B to supply via truck chickens
>> or remote hours-of-effort to A; and,
>>
>> * If A can use WP to send USD to B, for B to use WP to send BTC to A;
>>
>> * Then why can't WP be used to arrange for A to send chickens to B, and
>> for B to supply hours-of-effort to A?
>>
>> ... I personally don't yet have an opinion about whether arranging barter
>> ought to be "in-scope" or "out-of-scope" for the Web Payments work. If
>> barter is in-scope. then my "financial exchanges" edit should revert back
>> to "exchanges of value".
>>
>>
>> 2. Added to scope: * Methods to accommodate transaction currency choice
>> and single-currency/multi-currency price management in association with
>> listings.  << The wording here with "accommodate" leaves flexible whether
>> the detailed documentation and the implementation specific functions might
>> be inside or outside the Web Payments spec. All the spec would do is
>> "accommodate" these.
>>
>> 3. Here a useful distinction between the work "technology" and the word
>> "solution". The text was: "Technologies that are vital for the proper
>> operation of the technologies listed above"  It now reads "Technologies
>> that are vital for the proper operation of the solutions listed above..."
>> Technologies can implement solutions. Solutions don't implement
>> technologies. Or so I reckon...?
>>
>> 4. The word "proprietary" is replaced with "restricted". This has come up
>> in other fora, and the language out there is slowly being morphed toward
>> greater precision. The point here is that source code under free/libre/open
>> licenses is still "proprietary" to the holder of copyright title who has
>> legal authority to issue the licenses. And  ideas under a defensive patent
>> (eg http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ ) are still "proprietary" to
>> the holders of the patent.
>>
>> 5. To the "out-of-scope" topics I've added: "The relative merits of
>> various currencies or units of account. (i.e. The focus of this Community
>> Group is on Web-based financial transaction methods with any currencies or
>> units of account as determined by users.)"
>>
>> Joseph Potvin
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Oops, that previous edit was not on the Web Payments charter... that's
>>> the landing page for the Web Payments CG. Same point, though: validation or
>>> push-back on the revisions I've made.
>>>
>>> Ditto now for edits made to the "Goals" section of the WP-CG Charter:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/WebPaymentsCommunityGroupCharterProposal#Goals
>>>
>>> Let me comment on a few of my suggested revisions:
>>>
>>> 1. The Goal section now has a specific and referenced statement of the
>>> W3C process goal, with direct links to the appropriate process sections of
>>> the W3C Process Guide.
>>>
>>> 2. Language relating to "patent-free" / "royalty-free": There *can* be
>>> defensive patents in prototyped (and later reference implementation)
>>> solutions
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/defensive-patent-license-and-other-ways-beat-patent-system
>>> The new language is consistent with the W3C policy on patents, found here:
>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
>>>
>>> 3. On this list there's been some discussion of the word "technologies".
>>> In these edits I used the word "solutions" instead. The reason is that
>>> sometimes a use case is addressed by means other then technological (eg
>>> through information enabling the user to do something, rather than
>>> automatically doing it for the user).  I don't know if there are definite
>>> preferences amongst CG members and for principal author Manu about this
>>> particular word choice.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joseph Potvin
>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>> http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio
>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>> LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please advise if this edit of the Introduction section is helpful:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/Main_Page#Introduction
>>>>
>>>> Click the "History" tab to compare before & after.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>> http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio
>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>> LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>