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


> It seems a little strange to bring up transparency whilst creating an entirely separate organization with a chair of the IG that lists web payments work under its remit. Of course, those efforts may well be very worth's just I don't know anything about them.

Creating an organization to help us do our work here that is being publicly announced prior to doing any of said work is not a transparency issue.

This is:

Person A tells Person B that "everyone" wants them to do something and that "everyone" thinks they are being intransigent because they haven't done so yet. Person B has no idea who "everyone" is and is aware of little no to discussion on the matter other than perhaps with Person A. Person B also had no idea that there was, supposedly, a long lasting push to make them do this thing.

That level of unawareness on the part of Person B because there is simply no public record or discussion substantiating the claims made by Person A is a lack of transparency. It shouldn't happen because it causes peoples' positions, demeanors, and motivations to be misrepresented.

Ideally, when people have opinions they would speak for themselves and make those things known in a public way. If you must speak for another group, please avoid saying "everyone" and be more specific. All of this can happen on the issue tracker, or preferably, in my view, on the calls so that there can be more high-bandwidth open discussion of it.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Received on Sunday, 21 February 2016 16:45:19 UTC