W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Comments on VCTF Report

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:23:09 -0600
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8F5FF03C-2D5F-40D1-B4B4-C949AAD73E2A@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> On 02/17/2016 08:56 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> I believe the report should focus on what the task force has done
>> since approval in November [1].
> It does.
> In addition, four of the Verifiable Claims Task Force members have been
> working very hard to whip the use cases document into shape by the
> face-to-face and highlight the payments use cases for the IG. Part of
> that process was to go back through the survey and extract use cases
> that were pertinent. All of that work was done after the VCTF was formed.

But the use cases are not tied to the interviews. Therefore it is not easy to
understand which use cases were strongly supported (or not supported)
by the interviewees.

>> That is why I do not think the survey or other preliminary work done
>> by the CG should be featured
> Why would we not include pertinent data from 43 organizations (a healthy
> chunk of whom are W3C members) in our findings?

In my view the goal of the meeting discussion should be to understand the challenges
and concerns that were raised.


>> At the FTF meeting we should focus on what path forward would be
>> most likely to lead to success.
> Agreed.
> The VCTF is asserting that the path is writing a narrow charter proposal
> with a strong, focused set of use cases and socializing that information
> among the interviewees and W3C member companies before taking that
> charter to a vote.
>> My sense from reading the materials and your response, is that there
>> was not consensus from the interviewees on where to start work.
> That's not what I said and I specifically pointed out where interviewees
> stated where they said we should start work.
>> You wrote "No one said don't proceed with work in this area.” and "No
>> one said data model and syntax shouldn’t be worked on.” I would hope
>> for support for a particular direction from the interviewees, not
>> just lack of opposition.
> I pointed to specific places where many of the interviewees supported
> working on data formats and syntax. The point I was making with the "no
> one said" was that there was not opposition to starting this work, as we
> specifically asked about work should be done. If it's not clear that
> there is consensus around what a charter should cover then, we should
> update the report.

Here’s one idea to tie the CG use cases more closely to the interviewee’s

 * Identify a subset of CG use cases that you think with within the bounds of
   consensus that you believe you heard during the interviews.

 * Send them to those interviewed to ask them to indicate which ones they
   believe W3C SHOULD charter work to address.

 * If there is an obvious subset among all involved where there is strong agreement,
   that seems like a big win.


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

Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 14:23:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:49 UTC