Re: Anti-extremism as a strategy (was: Google payment plans)

I appreciate these constructive ideas.

Nevertheless, I consider myself a lurker on the list and
a bit of a skeptic in regards of big companies and banks and big-interests,
and I am way off most of people's motivations here.
But Manu incited me to contribute my points of view some time ago.

Payments is about money, and money is about banks.
Banks and governments have the monopoly about money.

Standardization is basically impossible nowadays if you have to face strong
opinions like from giants. We have had already
strong voices here saying basically "if this then without us".

I wonder if the noble ideas of many people here have a chance of succeeding
in this space.
Joseph Potvin's list of successes and failures shows successes in community
building and (partial to full) failures in getting buy-in from the big
players.

So I wonder if the *strategy *of being nice and play with the big fish
promises
more favorable result than a more bold but uncertain approach with going
"extreme measures".

(I didn't really understand though what those extreme measures are,
maybe I missed an email).

The OAuth 2.0 protocol is a great example of how a great idea with much
heart blood
got watered down through intervention of vested interests.

I don't mean to brake any process here though.
Just offering my opinion.


2014-04-10 13:21 GMT-05:00 Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>:

> I've actually gone up against the "google wallet does it already" argument
> about 18(+) months ago.  Emailed the person making these statements and
> posed the question / statement made to Vint Cerf.  Vint was good in his
> reply, the person making the statements then got rather upset.
>
> I wouldn't be so quick as to suggest anyone is a competitor, including
> google; at least not in the traditional way many people remember Microsoft
> I guess... Javascript wars, etc.
>
> More broadly;
> People still get taught HTML(5) in universities using w3schools to source
> info; for sites that must validate with the w3c validator; obviously, the
> proprietary extensions don't validate; yet examples shown to explain "what
> is possible", use those extensions (properly authored for each browser,
> etc.); but nonetheless, providing a good example of frustrations that will
> likely to be an on-going feature of the innovation and stability cycles
> exhibited throughout the web.
>
> IMHO - Google is potentially a massive service provider, but also one
> highly involved in making open standards n such.  WebRTC comes to mind as
> an example, and an example of an app that's currently not working for them
> - google wallet.
>
> Another good example in the rww space is GitHub.  A great alternative.
>
> To get these standards working, we'll need a collaborative ideology, which
> of course, is what it's all about.
>
> Challenging, certainly. But also purposeful. In a meaningful way.
>  Functionally, many things are impossible without standards that are vendor
> neutral.
>
> Timh.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 11 Apr 2014, at 3:57 am, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/10/2014 06:54 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> >> The W3C payment initiative has the two worst imaginable competitors:
> >> Status Quo and Google. To fight this, requires more than just
> >> technology; it requires a *strategy*. ... That's what I in an
> >> off-list message meant with taking *extreme measures*.
> >
> > While I appreciate some of your cynicism, the basic premise of your
> > argument is off, Anders. :)
> >
> > Here's why:
> >
> > You're approaching this whole payments standardization process as a
> > large conflict where "extreme measures" will ensure a favorable result.
> > If it's one thing that your approach will do, it will be to alienate
> > exactly the sort of organizations that we are going to need in order to
> > make this initiative successful.
> >
> > While there is certainly competition in the form of the status quo, and
> > some pretty compelling proprietary products from W3C member companies,
> > it would be wrong to frame the discussion where we're working /against/
> > W3C member companies (or the payments industry, in general). If that
> > happens, we can only hope for fragmentation in the marketplace and a
> > failure of what we're trying to accomplish here.
> >
> > Here are a few goals that we're trying to achieve:
> >
> > 1. Build a basic set of technologies for the Web platform that create a
> > level playing field as it relates to sending and receiving money on the
> > Web.
> >
> > 2. Bring as many of the existing financial industry players as we can
> > along without causing too much disruption to their day to day
> > operations. Some will refuse to join us, but it won't be because we
> > didn't try very hard to bring them along.
> >
> > I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what you're proposing, but
> > it sounds like your "extreme measures" will destroy much of the good
> > will and progress that we've achieved to date. Please be clear in what
> > you're proposing we do as a community. I'm going to send something out
> > in a bit outlining what we have done as a community to date, and what
> > I'd like us to do as a community over the next 12 months.
> >
> > -- manu
> >
> > PS: Mailing list arguments are good, as long as they have a concrete
> > outcome. What exactly do you want to see happen?
> >
> > --
> > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> > blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop
> > http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/
> >
>
>