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


> The key is, no matter how much discussion happens directly between members, the chairs or staff, nothing is ever resolved by the group without being presented and discussed openly.

This is a specious argument. I don't know how much you know about elections in the United States, but there are two stages. In the first stage, (typically wealthy) campaign donors pick the candidates. In the second stage, those candidates are presented as the only viable options to the people. So, as the supporters of this system say, all that matters is the people pick the final winner.

Let's be careful that we don't emulate that system. It's not a good one.

Now, that doesn't mean we can't have side discussions and come up with proposals that we think the group will be amenable to. It just means that it's important that the group be more informed and engaged in the entirety of the decision making process.

I think most of the problems thus far have had to do with the fact that we don't have a set of specs that we're all working on as a group, together. This includes discussing the details of them on the calls. Part of this will require us making sure our goals are clear and in alignment. I'm hopeful a lot of this will be resolved following the F2F and there won't be a sense of different groups of people working in two different directions and then presenting two things for people to pick from. We could probably come up with something *together* that worked better *for everyone*.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Received on Sunday, 21 February 2016 17:21:43 UTC