W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > September 2015

Re: Links for Monday WPIG agenda

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:14:17 -0500
Cc: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <5D07DF0C-9027-453D-9E00-124AAE586724@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 09/11/2015 03:08 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> Thanks for the heads-up. I support a quick mention at the Monday
>> call, but suggest we frame the topic so that it is more about
>> bringing proposals to the new WG than about the details of this
>> specific proposal.
>> 
>> Would that work?
> 
> Yes, kind of. Refining further:
> 
> 1. We have comments on the charter that sound like: "The IG doesn't
>   seem to have done the work to gather technical input to the WG
>   and that's a recipe for failure". This is an attempt to respond to
>   those criticisms with something concrete.

Indeed. And I hope we get more than one proposal so that the WG has
different perspectives to consider.

> 2. We really need to have a handle on if what we're proposing that the
>   WG work on seems like it's achievable. I think it is, but going
>   through a few rough exercises and having something to point at /as a
>   starting point/ helps us be more confident in the direction we're
>   pointing the Web Payments WG.

Yes. I felt that Evanís work during the June face-to-face meeting, albeit
detailed, was helpful in bringing us to a shared understanding on the charter.

But now that we are shifting the energy to the WG, it feels to me like the IG
should not be looking at detailed proposals and the WG should (even as soon
as their first FTF meeting).

> 3. Providing an example of what a W3C technical solution looks like
>   could prompt more proposals from people that are not familiar with
>   the proper balance of chicken bones, shrew hair, and river mud that
>   W3C spec editors use to concoct their specifications.

Absolutely +1 to raising awareness in the IG about this endeavor. But
I would not spend a lot of time on the particular approach taken in the IG;
rather people should be invited to review it and comment to the entity that
is working on it.

> 
> I think we should cover those three items (quickly) and give folks an
> opportunity to read through the document if they want.

No problem inviting people to read through it; just not on the IG call. :)

Ian

> To be clear, the
> three items are 1) responding to "vague technical direction" charter
> criticisms, 2) ensuring that we're not proposing something that's not
> achievable without great complexity, and 3) how others should provide
> technical proposals as input to the Web Payments WG.
> 
> -- 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/
> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447




Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 22:14:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:44 UTC