Re: No Web Payments IG meeting 16 November

> On Nov 17, 2015, at 9:36 AM, David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com> wrote:
> 
> Nick wrote:
>> Forgive me if this has already been answered elsewhere on the Credentials CG, but I am
>> wondering how a task force under the WPIG would not have the same presumption of 
>> non-neutrality?
> 
> Just to clarify, I believe that some people* have indicated that doing the discussions on the existing Credentials CG would be non-neutral.  
> 
> So far, I haven't heard that anyone thinks that discussion on WPIG would be non-neutral.  

Well, it would inherently have a focus on payments, whereas it seems to me end-goal of the task force has many applications outside of that space. I don't know if that is a bad thing or not, but it just seems to me the Credentials CG would be a better fit. But I don't partake in that CG so it's not something I have visibility of - perhaps there are other issues here.

> 
> *I have no idea who those people are.
> 
> Best regards,
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nshearer@apple.com [mailto:nshearer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:53 AM
> To: Manu Sporny
> Cc: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: No Web Payments IG meeting 16 November
> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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/Credent
>>> ials
>> 
>> 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/Verifiab
>> leClaimsTaskForce
>> 
>> 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.)
> 
> Forgive me if this has already been answered elsewhere on the Credentials CG, but I am wondering how a task force under the WPIG would not have the same presumption of non-neutrality?
> 
>> * 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 Tuesday, 17 November 2015 17:46:11 UTC