Re: Web Payments CG Charter Proposal

Thanks Manu.

>From my perspective one of the most important issues raised by Paypal/Ebay
that doesn't seem addressed in this charter is the relationship of the
community group to the working group.

The ostensible relationship that I see is that the community group issues a
series of recommendations to the working group based on the consensus of
the participants of the community group. Because the certain large industry
groups will not participate (for IPR or other reasons), these will be
liable to change at the level of the working group.

At least in terms of emphasis, this new charter seems to take things in an
entirely different direction, the actual development of decentralized
technologies.

As not much more than a lurker at this point, I don't have a tremendously
large stake in either position (although I'd like to keep an openness to
both proprietary and open source solutions, as we are a provider of both).

Best,

Jd
ᐧ


Joel Dietz
Founder and CEO
Evergreen | evr.gr | @fractastical <http://www.twitter.com/fractastical> |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xGdTV_UMOg&hd=1


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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, 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
>
> If 2/3rds of the voters approve of the charter, it will be approved as
> our operating charter.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> 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/
>
>