- From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:22:15 -0500
- To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Thanks to Dave Longley and Nate Otto for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available:
http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2015-12-15/
Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2015-12-15
Agenda:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Dec/0050.html
Topics:
1. Introduction of New Participants
2. Review Deliverables
3. Review Milestones / Timelines
4. Review Benefits for Stakeholders
Resolutions:
1. Request that the Web Payments Interest Group approve the
Verifiable Claims Task Force with the caveat that we still need
to do interviews before finalizing work and problem statement.
2. Adopt the Deliverables in the VCTF wiki as they stand today.
3. Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in the
wiki.
4. Adopt the benefits as they stand now in the wiki with the
understanding that we may come back and revise the list as we
learn more over the next couple of months.
Organizer:
Manu Sporny
Scribe:
Dave Longley and Nate Otto
Present:
Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, David Ezell, Eric Korb, Greg Kidd,
Brian Sletten, Daniel C. Burnett, Carla Casili, Stuart Sutton,
Gregg Kellogg, Pat Adler, Nate Otto, Matt Collier, Shane
McCarron, Erik Anderson, David I. Lehn
Audio:
http://w3c.github.io/vctf/meetings/2015-12-15/audio.ogg
Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny: We're going to continue going through the proposal;
hopefully the last week that we revise it and get buy in. Once we
get buy in we're going to invite all the people we wanted to
interview. We'll invite in parallel and try to get through
interviews as quickly as we can. As soon as we can get through
those, we'll cram as much into January as we can.
Manu Sporny: The order of operations this week seems to be:
refine proposal, wrap up today, contact all the people that have
said they are concerned about the work we're trying to do. Get
input before officially starting task force work. Ratify task
force, hopefully WPIG will approve the work seeing broad buy in.
Then we'll start constructing all the documents in our work plan.
Our work plan is the last agenda item for today. We probably
won't get to it today based on speed we're going.
Manu Sporny: Other administrivia: we do want some of the new
participants on this call to introduce themselves, but do so in
IRC: type name, org you're associated with, and why you are
interested in this work.
Manu Sporny: Let me know what you guys think of this, but this
will be the last call of the year and we'll take a break until
January 12th. Trying to respect the holidays and time off and
giving people down time. People have been working hard want to
give down time. Proposal is that this week is the last for calls
and next call with be January. That doesn't mean no work will
happen, just no calls until January 12th.
David Ezell: I wanted to sort of understand ... we have an IG
meeting on Monday, do you feel you'd be ready for us to vote on
the task force on Monday?
Manu Sporny: I think Ian said that he wanted us to get buy in
from the folks that have been cranky about this work. That the
task force would not be started until we've at least had
discussions with them. The hope would be that they'd be
interested in the work.
Manu Sporny: It doesn't affect the output of the group. We're
not operating officially right now but we don't need to be to
collect the data we need. That's just my opinion and a request
from W3C staff. If the group feels that we should do something
else and we should ask the IG to ratify the group next week that
would be one possibility.
David Ezell: Personally I'd like to see this become a task
force. It's just a task force, not a big deal. Do you have time
frame?
Manu Sporny: Here's the other thing that we should try and do
... we should try and get this task force in front of the IG at
SF at the F2F.
Manu Sporny: It would be a great way to co-mingle the people
involved in the work. The WPIG is meeting Monday, the WPWG on
Tuesday, potentially this group could meet before the IG met
(Sunday) but that's not really realistic. Maybe we could do it
Thursday but there's a concern that that's too much F2F for all
the people. The F2F is at the end of February and we need to
figure out if this group is going to have F2F that early and it
is a bit premature for this group, we'd really have to get
materials together, but it would be missed opportunity I think.
We should really get a lot of work done in Jan, and early-mid
Feb. Hope would be to go co-locate at Google's facilities as
well.
Dave Longley: On the queue to say official task force could be
doing interviews - Task Force is supposed to be neutral, I don't
see why you can't ask if Task Force be ratified before
interviews. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
David Ezell: I wanted to say sort of what Dave is saying. I kind
of understand what Ian is trying to get. I don't want to take up
the time with these kinds of logistics. There is an IG meeting on
Monday, the next IG meeting won't be until Jan 11th. If we don't
approve the task force on the 21st, then we'll need to do it on
the 11th. If it seems like it's in the plan ... would you do the
interviews before Jan 11th?
Manu Sporny: I think we'd wait to get the whole thing approved
until Feb if we did that.
David Ezell: I don't see the problem space as clearly as he
does; it seems like you form the task force and you do the work.
I'll try and get you a clear answer and circle back around
Monday. I don't think waiting until F2F to approve the task force
doesn't seem like the right thing.
Eric Korb: What is the advantange of going to Task Force vs
Working Group? Or, is that not possible? [scribe assist by Eric
Korb]
Manu Sporny: I agree, the only reason we're entertaining that is
due to a request from W3C staff but maybe that was just a soft
ask instead of a hard ask.
Manu Sporny: Eric, there is no option to going to WG, we have to
build the case for WG which is what the Task Force does.
Manu Sporny: Task Force builds case for if W3C can add value and
how to structure the work, etc.
Manu Sporny: Task Force is next step.
Eric Korb: Manu, thx
Manu Sporny: Having said all that, do folks feel like we have
enough buy in and consensus on the proposal to just vote on it?
Manu Sporny: So the task force is formed? That doesn't mean
things are set in stone and we still have interviews, etc. and we
can be open to go in another direction.
Manu Sporny: One approach is to get the Task Force approved and
then say that we still need to ensure the problem statement is
accurate and we have work to do, etc.
Dave Longley: +1 To trying approval at next meeting.
David Ezell: I'm comfortable with "we've done all work except the
interviews." Present to the IG, and see what happens.
Greg Kidd: +1
Brian Sletten: +1 Approval
Daniel C. Burnett: Don't see why not. +1 to trying for approval
at next meeting
Carla Casili: +1 For next week
David Ezell: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Eric Korb: +1
RESOLUTION: Request that the Web Payments Interest Group approve
the Verifiable Claims Task Force with the caveat that we still
need to do interviews before finalizing work and problem
statement.
Topic: Introduction of New Participants
Manu Sporny: If you haven't been on the call before, please type
out, in IRC, your name, organization you're associated with, and
why this work is important to you.
Topic: Review Deliverables
Manu Sporny:
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce
Manu Sporny: http://w3c.github.io/vctf/
Manu Sporny: We're continuing through the proposal. As we
demonstrate that there's consensus in this group, the sections
along with the modifications we make as we approve them, they are
being moved over to the VTCF webpage. Looking there now, you
should see the stuff we have consensus for.
Manu Sporny:
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Deliverables
Manu Sporny: To summarize, we're going to do recorded interviews
to bring people in and get opinions. We're going to have a set of
questions to give them and have them look at the problem
statement, most likely spending an hour on them to get a thorough
analysis on what we're doing and make sure we're not missing
anything.
Manu Sporny: Many of them are key to identity and credentialing
initiatives in the past, experts, we want their input.
Pat Adler: Hi All, my name is Pat Adler, I work for the Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago and am a member of the Web Payments IG.
I'm interested in this work as I do quite a bit of work with both
payments and identity which I believe would both benefit from an
open standard on verifiable claims.
Nate Otto is scribing.
Manu Sporny: We need to identify benefits for financial,
education, and healthcare industries.
Manu Sporny: We are going to create a use cases documents. We
may create a vision document.
Manu Sporny: That's what this task force is responsible for
doing. Once we create that material, the web payments IG will
create a charter and a roadmap. They may do that with help from
this task force. It will be socialized among the W3C member
companies.
Brian Sletten: Does "widely socialized" mean something specific
or is it just best effort?
Manu Sporny: I misspoke. It is mandatory that we create them.
Manu Sporny: Folks coming into this group will not be able to do
a thorough comparison themselves. We need to do this work for
them. This is the first question asked by people coming into the
group.
Manu Sporny: "Widely socialized" terminology means we try very
hard to get input from advisory committee, chairs of different
working groups, w3c membership in general.
Manu Sporny: We're going to ask "what do you think of this? Do
you think it's a good charter? Do you have any
corrections/comments?"
Brian Sletten: Yes
Manu Sporny: One of the deliverables is a roadmap document with
phases. Hopefully that addresses your concerns.
PROPOSAL: Adopt the Deliverables in the VCTF wiki as they stand
today.
Brian Sletten: +1 To adopting the deliverables
Stuart Sutton: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Nate Otto: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Shane McCarron: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Carla Casili: +1
Erik Anderson: +1
David Ezell: +1
Manu Sporny: Richard: +1
RESOLUTION: Adopt the Deliverables in the VCTF wiki as they stand
today.
Dave Longley: When would a capabilities document be created?
Manu Sporny: Good question; I think it would be good to have a
capabilities document. The identity/credentialing capabilities is
already part of the Web Payments IG capabilities document.
Manu Sporny: .. That could effectively become the VCTF
capabilities document
Dave Longley: "Identify benefits to financial, education, and
healthcare industries" does this translate into a capabilities
document?
David Ezell: Agree with manu. Our desire is to have a single
capabilities document across the entire activity, so that anybody
who wants to look at it can see which direction the various
working groups are running.
Pat Adler: One of the goals for the existing format is to be
able to have a section on credentials. The goal is to have that
capabilities document rounded out before we get to the February
face-to-face meeting.
Pat Adler: It's a little hard to do to get the big picture of
everything that's going on, now that there are multiple tracks
running in parallel. For anyone who can help, contact padler to
get the link to the document and get going.
Topic: Review Milestones / Timelines
Manu Sporny:
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Milestones_.2F_Timelines
Manu Sporny: Erik is bringing up a problem with socializing
charters. Folks who react very negatively are giving higher
priority than the 25+ people who don't have a problem with the
charter. This is just the way it is. W3C has been searching for a
solution for this human engineering problem for 2 decades now...
Manu Sporny: We've already had to change this because it's taken
longer to spin up this task force than we'd hoped. Nov: Discuss
proposal, Dec: socialize proposal. After today's call if proposal
is approved, we'll start setting up interviews. January, the task
force will hopefully be established
Manu Sporny: In February, we'll continue to publish all of our
findings as we do interviews. Just as we publish minutes for this
call, we will publish discussions with Brad Hill, Jeff Hodges,
etc. as it happens.
Manu Sporny: Then there is a question whether we should
co-locate in San Francisco (Google) with the Web Payments IG
face-to-face
Manu Sporny: March: revising documents from feedback from
face-to-face.
Manu Sporny: April: Finalize charter, so W3C advisory committee
isn't surprised when charter comes across their desks for a vote.
Manu Sporny: June: submit charter for W3C Approval
Manu Sporny: The front part of the timeline is very aggressive.
The tail end is a bit more leisurely. Often these things take
longer than we intend.
PROPOSAL: Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in
the wiki.
Shane McCarron: Have you built in any slack? Is that what you
mean when you say it is loose at the end?
Shane McCarron: Thanks!
Nate Otto: This timeline puts a lot of the hard work on this at
the same time as I've got a lot of other hard work scheduled on
different fronts, so it'll be a hard-working January!
David Ezell: It might be really helpful if you put some of those
milestones on the timeline. Like the face-to-face, and the AC
meeting (maybe in April)
David Ezell: That is a really important thing to be visible at.
Should probably just have a line in the timeline for each.
Manu Sporny: How about 22 Feb Face to Face is a hard date in the
timeline?
Dave Longley: http://www.w3.org/participate/meetings
Dave Longley: The link I put in says 20th & 22nd of March in
Cambridge, MA
David Ezell: It's better to give people a last chance to raise
an objection at an AC meeting than to give them a microphone to
go crazy.
Manu Sporny: What that means for this group, is we're going to
have to parallelize almost everything. There will be chaos and
hand-wringing, but I have seen it turn out well in the past.
Manu Sporny: Ok, I have added two hard dates in there. February
Face to Face, and March meeting in Cambridge
Manu Sporny: Any other questions/concerns before we approve the
timeline
PROPOSAL: Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in
the wiki.
Brian Sletten: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
David Ezell: +1
Nate Otto: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Stuart Sutton: +1
Shane McCarron: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Carla Casili: +1
Manu Sporny: Richard: +1
Eric Korb: +1
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Erik Anderson: +1
RESOLUTION: Adopt the Milestones / Timeline as it stands today in
the wiki.
Topic: Review Benefits for Stakeholders
Manu Sporny: Next up, a review of benefits for stakeholders.
This is requested by W3C management. I don't see it as critical
that we get it absolutely right.
Manu Sporny:
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Benefits_for_Stakeholders
Manu Sporny: It is confusing to folks who don't really
understand what the upsides are, if we create the ecosystem we
are talking about in the proposal. These are the benefits to
stakeholders that we've identified by today. There may be more,
but this is what we have right now. We expect to identify more
things and add to this list.
Manu Sporny: We're not trying to get a perfect list here, just
good enough to circulate to other people.
David Ezell: No problem with this list. Go through it.
Sight-unseen, a really long list, even if things are important is
not as sharp as a strong four-benefit list.
Manu Sporny: I'd argue it would take a long time to craft the
right sentence from these bullet points, so we could do it later.
David Ezell: Probably something that we should all agree that
you (manu) should do.
Carla Casili: Is there a desired number per main bullet point?
Manu Sporny: Something we should do together. But maybe someone
should take a shot at it that we can discuss
Manu Sporny: I don't think so -- there are more benefits for
some stakeholder groups than others.
Shane McCarron: We should try to ensure this ties back to the
problem statement
Manu Sporny: As you can see for those lists, everyday people
have a lot of benefits. This is really where the w3c excels; the
everyday person is their customer.
Manu Sporny: Agree that this should tie back to the problem
statement.
Carla Casili: Yes
Manu Sporny: One of the stakeholder groups we have added
recently is "People": "employees, professionals, property owners,
legal guardians..."
Manu Sporny: Listing benefits from ...
https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Benefits_for_Stakeholders
: no provider lock-in, portable usage, privacy-enhanced sharing
mechanisms (It's up to the person to share), give people control
of confidential informations, elimination of repetitive input on
websites (shipping address, email address), reduction in the need
to input PII (SSN, Credit Card number, or other secret
numbers)...
Manu Sporny: Better usability for sites that need to collect
data: Part of this is regulatory compliance, part of this is
better accessibility for disabled users.
Manu Sporny: Does anyone see a benefit that we missed?
Dave Longley: Should something about lowering the cost of
managing, acquiring, maintaining these things, be something to
touch upon?
Brian Sletten: I will think about language to propose.
Manu Sporny: For Erik's suggestion: try to wordsmith it
Shane McCarron: Cost-reductions through credential persistence
and verifiability
Shane McCarron: Yes
Manu Sporny: Shane's comment is in relation to what bsletten
...said
Shane McCarron: Maybe "machine verifiability" to highlight
capability
Shane McCarron: (Nice)
Manu Sporny: On to Issuers: DMV, government, corporations,
education providers...
Manu Sporny: Level competitive playing field (not just
super-providers). Proposal is that there could be easy entry for
new competitors in spaces where verifiable claims are necessary
Manu Sporny: Richer set of verifiable claims to choose from --
overall, more powerful than if different sections of the market
were siloed between different issuers.
Manu Sporny: Avoid vendor-specific solutions and lock-in
Manu Sporny: Any other benefits to issuers?
Manu Sporny: Moving on to consumers
Manu Sporny: Consumers are organizations who accept verifiable
claims to provide some good, privilege, or service to holders of
verifiable claims.
Dave Longley: Issuers: potential for reduced infrastructure needs
Carla Casili: Are we going to be revisiting these at a later
date?
Carla Casili: Great, thx.
Manu Sporny: How about "potential for reduced infrastructure
needs"
Dave Longley: User-centric "architecture" instead of "focus".
Manu Sporny: Moving onto consumers. 4min left.
Dave Longley: "Ability and choice"
Eric Korb: Happy to stay on past hr
Dave Longley: Greater "diverisity and trust"
Dave Longley: Maybe try "Increased ability to trust the
authenticity of claims made by a diversifying set of issuers"
Dave Longley: "Increased diversity and choice when establishing
trust in authenticity of verifiable claims"
Manu Sporny: Moving on to ID providers... level playing field
for services competing to demonstrate that they are the best
place for users to store their verifiable claims
Manu Sporny: Value-added services: because you're storing
personally identifiable information with them, you can
potentially be offered benefits.
Manu Sporny: Finalizing for this call, the list of benefits
PROPOSAL: Adopt the benefits as they stand now in the wiki with
the understanding that we may come back and revise the list as we
learn more over the next couple of months.
Brian Sletten: +1
Dave Longley: +1 (Should add that infrastructure needs are also
reduced for consumers and IdPs)
Daniel C. Burnett: +1
Eric Korb: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Matt Collier: +1
Shane McCarron: +1
Eric Korb: +Q
Manu Sporny: +1
Erik Anderson: +1
David Ezell: +1
Carla Casili: +1 To this version with future revisions as needed
Stuart Sutton: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Brian Sletten: Very minor nit. I'm generally sympathetic to
prescriptivism, but I find the use of 'fora' to be off-putting. I
realize it is correct, but 'forums' are also recognized as legit.
I think we should use the more common term.
Manu Sporny: The problem statement makes it clear we're making a
user-centric approach here. What we're saying is that's not a
good scalable way of addressing that problem.
Eric Korb: K, thx
Carla Casili: Sorry, hard stop
Carla Casili: Thanks.
Shane McCarron: Me needs to run - good meeting!
Eric Korb: I saw some concern in a previous meeting that there
wasn't concensus around that focus. manu: There was wide support
-- don't think that's a bad thing, but we can talk more offline.
RESOLUTION: Adopt the benefits as they stand now in the wiki with
the understanding that we may come back and revise the list as we
learn more over the next couple of months.
Manu Sporny: Next call will be January 12. Hope you all have a
decent bit of downtime.
Eric Korb: Happy Hollidays!
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 20:22:39 UTC