- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:38:24 -0500
- To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
On 11/13/2015 05:18 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > It does not seem to me we need a call on Monday. All this can go into > the proposal: > https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/Credentials Looks like I'm not being clear. Let me try again: There is currently no workable proposal based on feedback from W3C and the Credentials CG. The proposed paths forward are in direct conflict with each other. So, there is nothing to talk about on November 23rd unless we come to a compromise. I don't want to try to come up with that compromise on November 23rd as it delays the discussion more than necessary. We have the information we need to have the discussion on Monday: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce At a minimum, we need the W3C staff contact (you), the Chairs, and other concerned parties on the call to make sure that there is agreement on a compromise path forward before sending it back to the WPIG on the 23rd. In an attempt to be even more clear: * You've asserted that a new Community Group is the best path forward. * The Credentials CG has rejected that path citing various concerns (re-creating what we already have in the CG, presumption of non-neutrality, increased workload, delays, etc.) * The WPIG seems indifferent on the path, as long as the work gets done. So, we need to see if you (and the people you are channeling) are okay with the proposal above before we raise it with the WPIG because it doesn't do anyone any good if we propose something that's just going to be immediately vetoed. -- 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, 14 November 2015 16:38:50 UTC