Re: Web Payments CG Charter Proposal

Hi Manu!

Appreciation for taking action on it so fast and taking you time to 
write this draft!

On 01/10/2014 10:55 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Based on concerns raised by PayPal/eBay and discussions with W3C, a
> suggestion has been raised that we think about defining the scope of
> work that we do here.
>
> The downside with having a charter is that we could inadvertently turn
> people with great Web payments ideas away from this group, or make it
> seem like the barrier to entry is too high (or that there is a barrier
> there when none exists).
Could you please explain more precisely how having a charter would 
affect barrier to entry? Would it only give people slightly different 
impression or make process of joining and participating more complicated?

>
> The upside is that we will all have a better idea of what this group has
> agreed to work on. It may also get larger companies into the group that
> have been standing on the side lines because their lawyers don't want
> them to commit to potentially endless IPR commitments.
+1

>
> A Web Payments CG Charter proposal has been put together that is meant
> to be fairly lightweight from a process perspective, but provide the
> lawyers with enough of an idea of the sort of work that we do here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/WebPaymentsCommunityGroupCharterProposal
>
> Feedback on this direction, changes to the charter, and general thoughts
> in this area would be great. Keep in mind: PLEASE DO NOT BIKESHED THE
> CHARTER,
I would suggest that whenever we feel like someone BIKESHEDS we clearly 
communicate having such *impression*!

>let's try to keep it simple and not let this discussion
> distract us too much from the technical work that we need to do. That
> said, thoughts? In particular:
>
> 1. Is this a good idea? Do we want a charter for this group?
>
> 2. Is the charter missing anything vital (keeping in mind that we want
> to keep this group very lightweight from a process perspective).
>
> 3. Is there anything in the charter that should be re-worded?
>
> Once we have the charter in a shape where most of the group thinks we
> should vote on it, we will use this online poll to vote on the charter:
>
> http://vote.heliosvoting.org/helios/elections/b40f9bee-7a3e-11e3-9dd8-a2f4e5bb7f8c/view
To stay honest I don't like that we will do formal vote using this 
voting system. It only provides option of using google || facebook || 
yahoo identities. I remember W3C CG used to have pool option in WP 
setup. I also remember this pool from WebID CG where we used our W3C 
identities: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/51933/webid-hash/
If everyone else feels fine with using service of heliosvoting.org I 
will follow and not bring this as an issue again! (at least for this vote)

>
> If 2/3rds of the voters approve of the charter, it will be approved as
> our operating charter.
>
> -- manu

Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 08:57:01 UTC