- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 10:10:08 -0500
- To: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On 03/11/2016 09:57 AM, Eric Korb wrote (via IRC): > <erkorb210_> I'm looking at the charter > <erkorb210_> Goals section > <erkorb210_> I wonder if we should be moving to the positive rather than > the negative. "Reducing" is not always good. > <erkorb210_> Improve detection of Fraud Done. https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/e374db989290fded6e7d7fa51edc1fd21298a288#diff-b366572a8c93e0ca1d571849e3ae6a3dR149 > <erkorb210_> Improve operational costs I changed the language to this and it became less clear what we were talking about. "Reducing costs" are typically viewed as a good thing and most people know what you're talking about when you say that. "Improving costs" is a bit vague. > <erkorb210_> also, I'd like to put in something that says "for all > stakeholders" > <erkorb210_> since it helps everyone in the chain We had this language in there before and removed it because we were asked to be more specific about the sorts of advantages to specific players in the ecosystem. We also had a statement saying that the technology should benefit "all stakeholders", but then it became unclear exactly which stakeholders we meant by "all", which is why we point out issuers, storage services, and inspectors of claims now. -- 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 Saturday, 12 March 2016 15:10:35 UTC