Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)

> Are there transparency issues?

Yes, there are transparency issues with the W3C staff and the Chairs of the Web Payments WG. You probably don't see it because you have access to all the information. The rest of us don't. To be clear, I don't think it's being done insidiously, but having been at the receiving end of it, it will be harmful to the group if it continues.

There have been multiple times I've observed where the Staff (with the aid of the Chairs at times) execute on a plan citing "data gathered from people that we've talked to" without giving the editors a heads up or making it clear who those people are or what they said.

To provide one example, the discussion in the Extensibility thread (https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/27) was disheartening. The way JSON-LD was sidelined by a Chair and Staff Contact without significant WG discussion felt premeditated. Here are a few of the issues with that thread (and discussion around it):

* Presumably there was a W3C Team Review on the API specs (@adrianhopebailie noted something to this effect in a comment somewhere), but none of this review was made available to the group. It seems as if the team review influenced how @adrianhopebailie and @ianbjacobs approached https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/27 but did not let the editor's (or WG) know about the outcome of that review.
* Premature assertion by @ianbjacobs that the Google/Microsoft proposal is what we're going to adopt "Can you tell me what changes would be necessary to the Google/Microsoft proposal to ensure that it does not "forbid" someone from passing JSON-LD?" (https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/27#issuecomment-178652405) -
Where was that coming from?
* @ianbjacobs asserting "I don't know JSON-LD well enough." but then fighting pretty hard against its inclusion as anything but an informative reference.
* Presumption by the chairs and staff contact that the Google/Microsoft proposal has "more momentum than the CG specs". I heard at least one of the Chairs and both staff contacts say the same thing in the same way weeks ago, before there was much discussion in the group. This typically happens when there has been a discussion that has happened behind closed doors. I'd like to know how the Chairs and staff contact came to that conclusion, because it was not discussed publicly.

I think there is a lot of strategy discussion happening during the Chairs/Staff call and much of that thinking isn't being conveyed to the group before the chairs and staff start acting on it. It also feels like the staff is representing the viewpoints (or perceived viewpoints) of W3C members instead of asking those W3C members to speak for themselves in the group.

I'll also note that I've participated in several groups where instead of having weekly Chairs/Staff strategy calls, the Chairs just thought out loud via the mailing list and everything worked just fine (because the group knew what they were thinking). I don't like that we have no idea about what goes on in the Chairs/staff calls (primarily because there is no summary or visibility into those conversations).

In addition, our group has 68 individuals, only 3 of which are invited experts. I know we've taken 100+ days to get back to a very well qualified Invited Expert and I'm wondering how many more have applied but been rejected or are still waiting for responses? We also just rejected someone who has been an active W3C spec editor/contributor from attending the face-to-face to prioritize potential new W3C members attending.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but all of these things are adding up. This is one of the most closed, non-transparent W3C WGs I've been involved in in a while, and I can think of a few things we could do to make it more transparent:

1. The Chairs and staff either minute their weekly meetings or stop having them.
2. If there is a review of specs the group is working on, we hear about it, and directly from the reviewers.
3. If W3C Members have an issue with the specs we're working on, we hear about it, and directly from the W3C member (not filtered through a staff contact).
4. We make an effort to get more than 3 IEs into the group, it's clear to me that we don't have enough perspective on Linked Data, merchant needs, security, Bitcoin, or browser technology in the group. I'm sure there is other stuff we're ignorant of as well. We could use a few more spec editors. Let's fill some of those knowledge / labor gaps by being more inclusive about Invited Experts.
5. We should allocate 20+ slots per face-to-face for observers and pick venues that can accommodate these people. We shouldn't be turning away as many people as we are for this face-to-face. We prioritize who we invite on who might help us first, and who might become a W3C member second (not the other way around, which is how it is right now).


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/89#issuecomment-186747261