- From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:23:53 +1000
- To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Sent from my iPad > On 19 May 2014, at 9:29 pm, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: > > Timothy, I'm starting to feel like I'm seen as some sort of > gatekeeper on this matter. Na. All good. Discussion is healthy, I have passionate views. Not specifically tailored "for your eyes only" - just my views, with regard to the formation of what I believe could be a very important web-standard sometime down the track, assuming the path is navigated, for which a good crew is always important for a successful voyage. I endeavour to ensure my contributions are both well formed, and diligently communicated. > I am just a participant from the > free/libre/open camp and I was just saying that off-the-record > conversations with the major payment incumbents don't bother me. I do appreciate the difference of views held in the market, and I'm no gatekeeper... Just a participant and contributor (well, I hope so anyhow...). If the current systems worked well, no disruptive new technologies / systems would have an opportunity for growth. Unfortunately that's not the case, yet. We likely still don't know exactly which bits need upgrading )holistically speaking)... > > Here are the relevant operating parameters: > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html > ...see especially http://open-stand.org/principles/ > http://opensource.org/osd-annotated > ...the W3C License is approved under these terms > http://opensource.org/licenses/W3C > > The incumbent players in the payments field are not subject to those > terms, and the discussion interface amongst he different "ways of > being" won't be successful as a unilateral imposition by anybody. > > I do think it will be very important that the W3C not accept to > include in the web payments space the likes of what it agreed to with > EME as an official extension to HTML5. As a result many in the web > standards space have lost some confidence in the W3C, and there are > some splintering outcomes, such as a DRM-free profile of HTML5 at > http://freedomhtml.org/. Please no huge thread on that segway! I'm > just say'n. Fortunately, I get to feed the decision making tree, rather than driving it. That's someone else's problem... :) > > Joseph Timh. > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Timothy Holborn > <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Jo, >> >> apologies for the long-email - figured it was a point that's important >> enough to scribe my thoughts on it, so it's looking more like a paper than a >> response. Below are a rather extensive outline of concepts / ideas, >> underpinning my belief that the group - should be primarily public, rather >> than private. >> >> I think the discussion is really very healthy - and i'm not precious about >> things... I try to reason considerations out, and work as part of a broader >> team, hoping i'm contributing towards the best possible outcome as someone >> who's entitled to a vote, or being heard. >> >> so... >> >> JO >> I do understand your concerns; i've also worked in closed-loop practices for >> a long-time, and i'm not even going to get started on non-disclosure related >> antics, that have within themselves a whole new group of threat-matrices. >> Interestingly, those models may change rather dramatically as more >> accountability capabilities and practices become semantically linked to >> online activities. With applied RDF, being employed within a specified role >> may be shown to not = being the primary contributor of value to that >> particular need / role requirement, within an organisation or project; and >> i'm looking forward to the stimulus such technologies provide to innovation >> industries broadly. >> >> WHY PUBLIC? >> Economic Rights are a constituent of Human Rights. With great humility, i >> still ponder the level for which these works seek to support; the fact that >> i'm Australian, with good common-law understandings, having worked somewhat >> overseas; but not in all regions, and so many cultural practices are so very >> different in so many places, in ways i've simply not translated yet. I've >> tracked in past very significant discussions that are held between EU / UN >> groups, and the more US centric interests, understanding to some level the >> linkages (many ages old) that provide bridges between the areas of forum. I >> still as yet, do not see the need for closed-loop development of these areas >> of technology, which are more broadly RDF orientated - or Web 3.0. In fact, >> if more stakeholders and representatives of stakeholders put more of their >> thoughts out publicly - i think the public benefit would continue to >> escalate. TimBL (as an example) provides an enormous about of data via >> public medium, which i think is enormously helpful... >> >> CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS & INNOVATION >> Incorporated Entities have sophisticated infrastructure in which teams >> within such entities are able to consider new opportunities, for their >> merits, and come-up with new mechanisms around how to manage opportunity >> (cost / benefit, SWOT, etc.). However organisations can suffer from a lack >> of discipline in thoroughly investigating new opportunities for their >> merits, which can result in ad-hoc 'bold-on' outcomes, as particular >> opportunities are deemed to be 'considered' by adapting existing business >> systems to new opportunities with a few lines of code (perhaps in a few >> languages). I know large organisations are very good at cookie-cutting >> where existing tooling is available in-house, or off the shelf; and that >> innovation makers / markets can be disruptive. Whilst many stories exist >> (i'm sure, electricity and the lightbulb wasn't fondly considered by >> alternative technology vendors at the time) The story of Napster and Sean >> Parker, inclusive of his longer-term career is a great example of a >> disrupter. If a study were done on the evolution of Napster (and later >> products such as iTunes, Spotify, etc.) It would be interesting to track at >> what juncture corporates involved were capable of being engaged to innovate, >> what is clearly now, a massive market, implicating many millions of humans >> on so many levels. >> >> PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS CONSIDERATIONS >> Broadly speaking, in terms of volume of affected legal entities directly >> (meaning natural or incorporated as entities: not agents.) i've had some >> comfort in that the threads are public, the works are public, the humanity >> of my messages are public - for the good, bad, yet to be considered and yet >> to be figured out or made meaningful. >> >> W3 / W3C is a complicated thing - at web-scale no less, which i'm still >> wrapping my head around. I hope i provide food for thought, rather than >> junk-food, fattening-up the mail-diet.. If the original proposal for WWW >> were put together now, do you think it would get past the first few hurdles? >> I like to think, that given the group of member organisations live behind >> the scenes; that the IG / CG related groups evolve opportunities in ways >> that support a corporations needs in engaging with new concepts & new >> opportunities that benefit eco-systems. >> >> So, with such things in mind; >> >> I think the philosophical outlook in which the original proposals were >> brought together, and the modern need for a form of philosophical >> engineering to make-up for issues throughout nascent markets, where legal >> systems simply haven't caught-up yet; brings about opportunities to build >> collaboratively, systems that have a cohesive structure; and that, rather >> than engineering things in a sports-person like manner that may lead to a >> seasons-ladder in who's strategy was more advantageously considered within a >> privileged group of contributors; where risks become that of publicly >> considered appropriate oversight. >> >> COMPLEXITY OF SUBJECT MATTER >> I do not believe this (a web-payments standard) is an easy endeavour. The >> nexus of issues that this standard will seek to cover is rather enormous. >> Politically, alot is going on around e-contracts and bitcoin. more >> practically, in Australia, we have mostly thermally printed receipts, which >> is a form of industry standard practices; and of course, whilst a receipt is >> required for a warrantee claim AND Australian law provides protection to >> consumers in such a way as to provide minimum expectations around warrantee >> for certain product types; the simple choice between the delivery of a >> thermal printed receipt, and a digital receipt, will likely be one of the >> many issues that might have significant debate. What may be worse, is that >> these events may then be used to revisit the opportunities for CRM both by >> retailers directly, and by new market entrants who believe an opportunity >> exists; for which i hope we've sorted out the privacy related specs in such >> a way as it is empowering for the greater majority of natural legal >> entities. >> >> Obviously, in one band of 'legal entities' there's a marketing / sales >> budget; in the other corner, humans. I see W3C as a collective voice for >> Humans, understanding it is brought together functionally by incorporated >> entities. >> >> BEST PRACTICE CONCEPTS >> I consider the close-relationship between 'the law of the people' (the rule >> of law) and commerce. Every good law is publicly available. Most government >> has debate available in a public document (in Australian parliament, the >> hansard). If corporations believe as legal entities it is too-risky to >> disclose scientifically endorsable strategy (meaning technical / functional >> requirements and underlying philosophies for a Web-Payments Spec) publicly, >> well, i think it comes down to shared values, and perhaps also lawyers, who >> love a good debate; and if any good legal reasons exist to ensure dev. is >> done privately, i'd welcome the input. >> >> In civics, shared-values are social-values that bind communities (such as >> democracies, states, etc.) together. These 'shared values' are generally >> translated into instruments that apply to all legal entities. It is my >> hope, that human rights principles apply as a principle driver of economic >> principles, and the science created in-order to develop, evolve and support >> prosperity. >> >> that said; Perhaps if private consultations are required for official >> purpose, a charter around how that could be facilitated and reported (with >> reasonable levels of diligence) to the public group, as to explain anything >> that cannot be made public specifically. Yet, even then - i don't like >> opening the doors to darkness. Not much good happens in the dark, well not >> much that isn't better in the light anyhow. >> >> Have you seen https://nrf.com/who-we-are/retail-communities/technology ?? I >> note, most of the 'spec' is public. National Retail Federation supports US >> retailers i'd imagine; The W3C is aligned to support... ? >> >> If legal entities are subject to laws (whether public or private); it is >> reasonable to provide the opportunity to understand the requirements. >> >> FEARS & INVESTOR STRATEGIES >> In relation to equity markets - VC, Private Equity and related investments; >> the project is speculative up until the point that it is widely accepted in >> utility, for a market-share of the web-payments industrial vertical. >> >> In my experience, people running these funds (to make a profit) come-up with >> all sorts of strategies. In other industry verticals, they might be >> collaboratively developing patent free medicinal solutions for diseases that >> kill millions of people, yet undoubtably, legal challenges are pursued. Yet, >> if they've found a revenue model to change the health-care modelling as to >> provide more ubiquity to underlying human values - well, i'd still support >> them, subject to their tactical processes of course... You'd only have to >> know about one person struggling with cancer before the concepts of humanity >> start toying with the expectations of equity markets, and a personal >> positioning statement in how you'd best fit into that cycle. Understanding >> of course, integrity of process is simply the best way overall no-matter the >> circumstance, which i think public forum therein supports. >> >> POTENTIAL IMPACT OF STANDARDS >> We're dealing with the means and mechanisms on how people are fairly >> rewarded economically. How people become entitled to feeding themselves, >> resourcing medical care, mechanisms that can support fair and reasonable >> economic distribution of reward for work, subject to the laws of the lands.. >> What are the consequences to philosophies (and conventions) of human rights >> without equity, commerce; application of what the web-payments standards >> methods are attempting to achieve. >> >> UNDERSTAND RDF - What is Webizing http://www.w3.org/community/webize/ >> It challenging to bring about ubiquity with regard to the concepts of >> applying decentralised RDF technology; and how things may change. With >> great frustration, i see some looking at RDF as a means to provide a bigger >> and better funnel, for not so awesome reasons (when looking at it from a >> users-point of view). I also believe, that the biggest driver of this; is >> that people simply think in relational DB terms. >> >> So to break-down some of those barriers (which also includes IMO, some >> rather substantial changes to the stakeholder analysis; from the traditional >> 'geek' of W3 forums) it is possible to be inclusive and accessible public; >> and in doing so, i believe the greatest potential can be achieved and >> measurably delivered, perhaps in stages; as an important constituent to >> future web-systems. >> >> CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS UPON TALENT & STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES >> Perhaps some assistance could beneficially be provided to potential >> stakeholders who require a private engagement policy agenda 'revamp' as to >> support engagement within public domain. I'm also not sure what the legals >> are around representations or other factors that relate to development. >> >> Perhaps another way of 'looking at it'; is that an individuals contract may >> allow them to participate as an individual, and perhaps sponsor them to do >> so, within a predefined scope. Perhaps a form could be generated that might >> provide a precedent outline of what sort of encumbrances need to be >> considered therein. I imagine, using a privately owned or affiliated email, >> or an appropriately defined footer; might be a consideration therein. >> >> >>> On 19 May 2014 13:13, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Timothy, Even though 100% of my work for the past 15 years in both >>> commercial and public sectors has been on free/libre/open source >>> projects and policies, I still wish to highlight the sorts of >>> considerations that diverse types of participants have when engaging >>> in negotiations towards genuine standards. To provide another example, >>> given how ridiculously fickle equity markets are, sometimes it can be >>> risky for a company with literal vested interests in an incumbent >>> payments system to even discuss hypothetically the possibility of >>> their currently lucrative system being abandoned. If you want the >>> incumbents to explore significant hypotheticals, and to honestly >>> consider the relative merits of other options without freaking out >>> their own marketing and licensing wonks, then you need to cut them >>> some slack to have exploratory discussions off the record. The W3C >>> seems to me an excellent forum in which to do that. But the scale is >>> hardly binary between fully transparent and fully secret. >>> >>> Joseph >>> >>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Timothy Holborn >>> <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I think people mix-up the underlying requirements of parsing >>>> Web-Payments >>>> between private systems (ie: banking platforms) and the needs of >>>> Web-Systems >>>> to support Web-Pages / Web-Services incorporating Web-Payments... >>>> >>>> Banking systems, sophisticated cryptography systems, Contracts and other >>>> 'commercial IPR' (and related) is certainly done in private. >>>> >>>> I believe these types of 'private systems' are outside of scope for the >>>> Web-Payments Standards Work. I therefore believe that although some >>>> discussion will be had aside public works; the standards works should be >>>> both transparent and public overall. >>>> >>>> I fail to understand how the best possible outcome could be achieved by >>>> undertaking this project privately; nor, do i understand why or what >>>> elements within the standards work could require confidentiality and/or >>>> a >>>> private forum in which to produce a web-user-centric standard for >>>> general >>>> purpose use. >>>> >>>> I therefore believe that the undertaking should be public. >>>> >>>> Perhaps, as a side note; an exclusion list could be defined in such a >>>> way as >>>> to ensure the scope is well defined, that the cohesive structure of an >>>> end-to-end web-payments system can and will be produced, and >>>> acknowledgement >>>> of areas where 3rd party integration may occur (utilising technology / >>>> systems developed in private) in a manner that is supportive of the >>>> intent, >>>> to establish a web-payment standard that is open, akin to the benefits >>>> of >>>> HTML / HTTP for Internet Protocol Data, Publishing & Communications >>>> systems. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 19 May 2014 12:40, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> RE: "closed meetings" >>>>> >>>>> Consider the United Way's view on this topic, as one example: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.unitedwaync.org/sites/uwncarolina.oneeach.org/files/filedepot/incoming/Executive%20Sessions.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Joseph >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Steven Rowat >>>>> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RE: "potentially to do this transfer among themselves without >>>>>>> middlemen >>>>>>> actors" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...except for all those who enable the Web to operate, and the >>>>>>> Internet to operate. >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> There will always be intermediaries of some sort. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes but designated common carriers (like the telephone company) are >>>>>> regulated differently, since it's been decided it's a shared public >>>>>> resource. Perhaps the Web Payments standard should be like this, in >>>>>> which >>>>>> case the 'middlemen actors' would be an evenly spread part of the web >>>>>> commerce resource that we all get to use, --just as I pay for a >>>>>> phone >>>>>> line >>>>>> and Walmart pays for phone lines, but Walmart doesn't get to decide >>>>>> whether >>>>>> and how individual users can have phone service. So, if the Web >>>>>> Payments >>>>>> is >>>>>> treated as a shared resource, perhaps Google/Microsoft/Corp. X >>>>>> shouldn't >>>>>> be >>>>>> allowed to consult in the W3C in secret about how the payments system >>>>>> would >>>>>> be standardized. >>>>>> >>>>>> Treating the Web Payments as such a shared resource, a type of common >>>>>> carrier, would I suppose be a specific step that would require >>>>>> government >>>>>> decision -- like the FCC is mulling over the ISP common carrier >>>>>> status >>>>>> at >>>>>> the moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://bgr.com/2014/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality-plan-mozilla/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps that's a fruitful discussion to have here too, before >>>>>> deciding >>>>>> on >>>>>> what the Web Payments system will look like or even whether the IG >>>>>> can >>>>>> be >>>>>> secret or public. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RE: "making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level on >>>>>>> the basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large >>>>>>> or small, established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> needs of those billions of people who may not want or need to be >>>>>>> involved with the companies when they make their web or phone >>>>>>> payments" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, the W3C membership involves more than "companies". >>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List >>>>>>> Second, they are not at all monolithic in their interests and long >>>>>>> terms >>>>>>> goals. >>>>>>> Third, who said "secret"? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First point, true, that was sloppy, I apologize. I wish there was a >>>>>> simple >>>>>> way (mashup pie graph? Where the semantic web when you need it?) to >>>>>> figure >>>>>> out the proportions of industry/academic/government membership of the >>>>>> W3C, >>>>>> but I haven't seen one. The current consortium member list appears to >>>>>> be >>>>>> majority companies versus the other two types, IMO, however. >>>>>> >>>>>> In terms of financial support, I also wish there was a pie graph, or >>>>>> even a >>>>>> table, of the revenue source totals (by type of institution), but I >>>>>> can't >>>>>> find that either, or an audit. >>>>>> >>>>>> But nonetheless, what I can find points to the fact that for-profit >>>>>> members >>>>>> pay between 4 and 70 times as much as non-profit members for >>>>>> membership, >>>>>> dependent on the size of company and the stage of development of the >>>>>> country >>>>>> it's situated in. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees.php?showall=1#results >>>>>> >>>>>> If we combine this with the fact that, say, 50% of the members are >>>>>> for-profit (which may be low), then it's clear that the large >>>>>> majority >>>>>> of >>>>>> the fees are paid by for-profit companies. Maybe 80%? 90%? Possibly >>>>>> more >>>>>> than that. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, according to the W3C published Revenue Model >>>>>> (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/facts#revenue) in addition to the fees >>>>>> above >>>>>> there are also: >>>>>> -- sponsorships >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/sponsor/ >>>>>> (ie, this year IntelXDK, Platinum Sponsor, 150K USD, ICANN, Silver >>>>>> Sponsor, 50K USD) >>>>>> -- and a list of programs that are funded >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/nmfunds >>>>>> (but given no amount -- just the program details and who funded >>>>>> it.) >>>>>> >>>>>> In sum, it's hard to generalize about the W3C funding because it's >>>>>> distributed...but it looks from the above that a large majority of >>>>>> their >>>>>> revenue comes from for-profit companies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also find it interesting, in terms of the public/private question, >>>>>> the >>>>>> fact that there is no easy way to get an overview of how much money >>>>>> flows at >>>>>> the W3C relative to corporate/academic/government sources, or >>>>>> individuals >>>>>> for that matter. Is anyone aware of a place where this information >>>>>> might >>>>>> be >>>>>> held? >>>>>> >>>>>> And so we come to Joseph's "Third, who said 'secret'?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Hm, apparently I did. But isn't that just as good a word for what's >>>>>> being >>>>>> discussed? The IG charter proposal states the option as working >>>>>> 'internally >>>>>> as a closed group and query the community on regular basis through >>>>>> the >>>>>> publication of draft documents'. >>>>>> >>>>>> The 'closed group' means that communications around a decision are >>>>>> not >>>>>> made >>>>>> public, correct? Those communications are then 'secret', aren't they? >>>>>> Not >>>>>> the draft decisions themselves, granted -- but still, it would be a >>>>>> consensus process that excludes outside individuals from >>>>>> participating >>>>>> because certain key parts are 'closed'. Secret. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's similar to a peer-reviewed journal publishing a paper based on >>>>>> a >>>>>> data >>>>>> set and the data not being public. And given the (perhaps >>>>>> unintentional) >>>>>> difficulty of ferreting out details of W3C funding amounts, it's also >>>>>> like >>>>>> the authors of that paper not declaring the source of the funding for >>>>>> the >>>>>> study. AFAIK, this is now a requirement for most peer-reviewed >>>>>> science >>>>>> papers -- declaring funding sources; because (as I remember reading >>>>>> in a >>>>>> meta-study, though I don't have a link handy) it's been shown that >>>>>> funding >>>>>> influences the result, even when the researchers don't believe they >>>>>> themselves are influenced by where their funding comes from. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RE: "because those billions of people don't know what they want yet, >>>>>>> and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the new >>>>>>> money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems >>>>>>> unfair >>>>>>> and in the long run counterproductive" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this statement sounds absurd, but that's probably not how >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> intended it. Can you clarify by what means you would see "billions" >>>>>>> engaging the issues? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't mean billions would engage with the discussion; of course >>>>>> only >>>>>> a >>>>>> few would. What I meant was that interested individuals who choose to >>>>>> follow >>>>>> the discussion could input during the process. If it's a closed >>>>>> group, >>>>>> then >>>>>> not even a representative interested few would be able to engage in >>>>>> the >>>>>> process itself -- except for the people who are already in the >>>>>> organizations >>>>>> and companies inside the W3C. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steven >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Steven Rowat >>>>>>> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Stephane and Joseph for the clarifications about the >>>>>>>> context >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> W3C public/private decisions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But Joseph's wording, in particular the way he uses 'stakeholders', >>>>>>>> prompts >>>>>>>> me to take issue with the relevance of this W3C context -- within >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> larger context of payments in a redesigned global money system that >>>>>>>> billions >>>>>>>> human beings may end up using. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joseph, you say: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate >>>>>>>>> from, >>>>>>>>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who >>>>>>>>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it >>>>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps so; and the W3C may well function as an 'industry standards >>>>>>>> body', >>>>>>>> but the web payments system could end up being used globally to >>>>>>>> transfer >>>>>>>> value by people who are not part of any company, and importantly, >>>>>>>> potentially to do this transfer among themselves without middlemen >>>>>>>> actors, >>>>>>>> -- so making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large or >>>>>>>> small, >>>>>>>> established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort the needs >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>> billions of people who may not want or need to be involved with the >>>>>>>> companies when they make their web or phone payments. This is >>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>> true even--especially--because those billions of people don't know >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> want yet, and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the >>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>> money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems >>>>>>>> unfair >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> in the long run counterproductive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You close by saying: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Issues regarding openness/closedness of >>>>>>>>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a >>>>>>>>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And this sums it up for me as well: I believe the word >>>>>>>> 'stakeholder', >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> terms of a web payment system, needs to be extended to apply to all >>>>>>>> humans >>>>>>>> on the planet, or at least all those who will use the web or a >>>>>>>> mobile >>>>>>>> phone >>>>>>>> for commerce of any sort in the next twenty years -- maybe 5 >>>>>>>> billion >>>>>>>> people? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (According to this NYT article [1], 'stakeholder' in its modern >>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>> dates >>>>>>>> from after 1964, so it's a new usage. We can redefine it again, >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> we? >>>>>>>> :-) ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/05/magazine/on-language-stakeholders-naff-i-m-chuffed.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/14 10:44 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to add a thought along the lines of Stephane's comments >>>>>>>>> (and >>>>>>>>> I hope he will correct me if what I say is inconsistent with what >>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>> and the W3C team have in mind). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although the W3C's membership includes companies with a diversity >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> business perspectives, my own frame of reference on the topic of >>>>>>>>> role-based access to project decisions is based upon this >>>>>>>>> collection >>>>>>>>> of sources about the "Foundations of Free/Libre/Open Works >>>>>>>>> Management" >>>>>>>>> the I and others have been assembling: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://osi.xwiki.com/bin/Projects/draft-flow-syllabus#HFoundationsofFLOWManagement >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate >>>>>>>>> from, >>>>>>>>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who >>>>>>>>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it >>>>>>>>> issues. While it is closely linked to the free/libre/open way, I >>>>>>>>> reckon it should not be expected to operate entirely as if it were >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> free/libre/open project foundation like, say, the R Foundation or >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Apache Foundation. This is not a criticism, it's just a >>>>>>>>> recognition >>>>>>>>> that it's a different sort of entity. It shares some but not all >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> characteristics. My impression is that the staff of the W3C as a >>>>>>>>> industry standards consortium have a greater direct role and >>>>>>>>> responsibility for the scope, substance and quality of its outputs >>>>>>>>> than is the case with free/libre/open software foundations, which >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> essentially facilitators in various ways. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adding on top of that, the fact that the functional realm of web >>>>>>>>> payments is already heavily populated with incumbents that span >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> range from the most powerful financial institutions on the planet >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the tiniest of start-ups, the balancing act that the W3C staff >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> accomplish if the organization is to host the development of a >>>>>>>>> standard on this topic is about as complex a >>>>>>>>> negotiation/coordination >>>>>>>>> job as can be thought up. Issues regarding openness/closedness of >>>>>>>>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a >>>>>>>>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joseph Potvin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My apologies for joining late this discussion but i was >>>>>>>>>> traveling. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I believe I need to bring some clarity on some of the points that >>>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> brought in this discussion. >>>>>>>>>> yes W3C develops open and patent-free standards. The >>>>>>>>>> development >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> standards is done in an open way and involve public feedback at >>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>> points in the process, see >>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html/ >>>>>>>>>> In particular, the stage called "Last Call" requires all comments >>>>>>>>>> received >>>>>>>>>> by the working group (WG) to be addressed, responded and agreed >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> commenter. So i believe we can safely say that the development of >>>>>>>>>> specifications at W3C is open and transparent. >>>>>>>>>> However, there is a big difference between having a WG (or a IG) >>>>>>>>>> requesting >>>>>>>>>> regularly the feedback of the public, and having a WG working in >>>>>>>>>> public. >>>>>>>>>> Usually feedback is requested on documents that represent >>>>>>>>>> consensus >>>>>>>>>> within >>>>>>>>>> the WG. While working in public requires that each member exposes >>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>> view in public. >>>>>>>>>> I'm all in favor of working in public. More than just >>>>>>>>>> transparency, >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> usually easier to manage feedback from external parties. People >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>> e.G. >>>>>>>>>> why specific design were ruled out, how consensus was developed >>>>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>>>> For that reason i put in the draft charter the proposal to have >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>> working in public. >>>>>>>>>> However, there are also a number of groups at W3C not working in >>>>>>>>>> public. >>>>>>>>>> There all kind of reasons for that. Some organizations are not >>>>>>>>>> willing >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> expose their opinions in public but are happy to participate in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> consensus building. Sometimes it is just a matter of >>>>>>>>>> communication >>>>>>>>>> policy, >>>>>>>>>> where organizations send people that are not allowed to speak in >>>>>>>>>> public. >>>>>>>>>> Again there might be many reasons. >>>>>>>>>> Here we are in the process of bringing a new community on board. >>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>>> understand what is acceptable and what is not for the members of >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> community. I'm here to learn. That's why, while proposing to work >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> public, >>>>>>>>>> i'm also willing to get feedback whether this is an issue for >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>> of this community or not. >>>>>>>>>> If it is not an issue, then fine. if it is an issue then we will >>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> do. But it is essential to let all organizations know that this >>>>>>>>>> option >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> the table and the charter development CG is here to build >>>>>>>>>> consensus >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> we will work in the future. >>>>>>>>>> I hope this clarify a bit the discussion? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>>> Le 15/05/2014 23:58, Melvin Carvalho a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15 May 2014 23:50, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/15/2014 01:34 PM, Steven Rowat wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2014-05-15, at 6:28 AM, Manu Sporny >>>>>>>>>>> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The option to run the payments work in a closed group, >>>>>>>>>>> except >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the publication of drafts, is now on the table. This >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> concerning >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Where is this proposal made? I can't see it in the >>>>>>>>>>> links >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> sent. >>>>>>>>>>>> The IG is so far listed as Public. ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> """ >>>>>>>>>>> I would be happy to know if the payment industry is more >>>>>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> be interested in working in public or internally as a >>>>>>>>>>> closed >>>>>>>>>>> group >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> query the community on regular basis through the >>>>>>>>>>> publication >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> draft >>>>>>>>>>> documents. >>>>>>>>>>> """ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the last bullet item in the list here: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpaymentsigcharter/2014/05/15/first-draft-of-future-web-payments-interest-group-charter-published/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But IMO It already looks from the proposed Charter that >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> various >>>>>>>>>>>> forms and arms of the existing financial services >>>>>>>>>>> industry >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>>>> overly recognized and served by the IG, with 'users' >>>>>>>>>>> tacked >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> the end as sort of an afterthought, as if a revolution >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>>>> finances are carried on isn't going to happen. That may >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> true, >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> it may not. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Part of this could be fueled by the W3C wanting to attract >>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>> members as it can into the work. Keep in mind that W3C is >>>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> to bring on a couple of big members if this work is going >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> proceed. >>>>>>>>>>> They need these new members because 1) there is a lot of >>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> done, and W3C needs the money to accomplish that new work, >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> 2) >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> need to make sure that we have solid representation from >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> payment >>>>>>>>>>> industry and that they're interested in implementing this >>>>>>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> we're proposing. If the option is not getting them onboard >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> starting the work vs. getting them on board and running >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> closed fashion, then that's going to be a hard decision to >>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> W3C. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That said, I think it would be a disaster for W3C to run >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> official >>>>>>>>>>> work behind closed doors. There should be enough >>>>>>>>>>> organizations >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>>>> to run this work the way W3C runs most all of its other >>>>>>>>>>> work; >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>>>> view of the public. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> W3C is a member of openstand: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://open-stand.org/principles/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [[ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _*Transparency.*_ Standards organizations provide advance public >>>>>>>>>>> notice >>>>>>>>>>> of proposed standards development activities, the scope of work >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible >>>>>>>>>>> records >>>>>>>>>>> of decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> provided. Public comment periods are provided before final >>>>>>>>>>> standards >>>>>>>>>>> approval and adoption. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _*Openness.*_ Standards processes are open to all interested and >>>>>>>>>>> informed parties. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ]] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While some work may be done in private, I presume anything >>>>>>>>>>> related >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> *standards* would be made public? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- manu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: >>>>>>>>>>> +Manu >>>>>>>>>>> Sporny) >>>>>>>>>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >>>>>>>>>>> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments >>>>>>>>>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org >>>>>>>>>> W3C +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27 >>>>>>>>>> BP 93 >>>>>>>>>> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, >>>>>>>>>> France >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Joseph Potvin >>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations >>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman >>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca >>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joseph Potvin >>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations >>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman >>> jpotvin@opman.ca >>> Mobile: 819-593-5983 >>> >> > > > > -- > Joseph Potvin > Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations > The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman > jpotvin@opman.ca > Mobile: 819-593-5983 >
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 12:24:33 UTC