W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > January 2014

Web Payments Telecon Minutes for 2014-01-15

From: <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:09:45 -0500
Message-Id: <1389809385178.0.23531@zoe>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Thanks to Joseph Potvin for scribing this week! The minutes
for this week's Web Payments telecon are now available:


Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).

Web Payments Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2014-01-15

  1. Web Payments CG Charter Proposal
  2. Web Payments CG Charter Poll
  3. Web Payments CG Work Items Poll
  1. The Web Payments CG Charter Proposal is ready for a vote, 
    the vote will open on January 16th 2014 and close on January 31st 
  2. Adopt the Web Payments CG Charter Proposal poll and use it 
    to determine consensus on the groups charter.
  3. Accept the questions in the modified Web Payments CG Work 
    Items poll and run the poll from January 16th to January 31st.
  Manu Sporny
  Joseph Potvin
  Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Joseph Potvin, Evan Schwartz, David I. 

Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Any changes to the Agenda? Any objections to 
  discussing the charter proposal first, moving item 1 down?
No Agenda changes, item #1 (web-payments.org changes) moved to 
  end of call.

Topic: Web Payments CG Charter Proposal

Manu Sporny: 
Manu Sporny:  The charter proposal came about because of 
  PayPal/Ebay's concerns with the group, it wasn't clear where the 
  lines were, and after we talked with Ian Jacobs at W3C, he 
  suggested that having a charter may help clarify where the Web 
  Payments CG stops and a potential Web Payments WG starts
Manu Sporny:  This is basically an attempt to document what we're 
  working on in the group to ensure we're on the same page, people 
  can quickly look at the charter and know what's in scope, and 
  hopefully we can get much bigger players into the group; their 
  lawyers are concerned about the openendedness of IP and patent 
Manu Sporny:  We've got a wiki page up now with the proposed 
  charter, it's fairly complete at this point
Manu Sporny:  I know Joseph asked about putting a section on 
  funding into the charter
Manu Sporny:  That's typically not done with w3c charters
Manu Sporny:  Not having it in the charter doesn't stop us from 
  trying to raise funds, but if we put it into the charter we may 
  have to solve funding issues before accepting it the charter (it 
  will slow us down).
Manu Sporny:  And it may be better to amend later if we want to
Manu Sporny:  We can discuss in more detail later, but it's 
  complicated, CG groups aren't technically paid for by W3C, they 
  dont' get funding, the W3C is only allowed to spend money on 
  specific working group activities, and even that doesn't include 
  paying editors and implementors, etc.
Manu Sporny:  Funding is problematic, we want to address that 
  issue in this group but we can't do that just yet
Joseph Potvin:  What occurred to me when writing that was 
  that.... if we come across a person or entity that wants to 
  support the work how can they? what's the answer?
Manu Sporny:  The answer right now is "we don't know"
Manu Sporny:  The text that you put in there was fine, we just 
  need to talk about it a bit more, but we don't want that to slow 
  down charter selection.
Manu Sporny:  It may be to put something out to the mailing list, 
  but someone might respond as if they were part of the group and 
  they weren't necessarily and then they'd take funding for a 
  proprietary solution, etc.
Manu Sporny:  Getting funding for the work is very important and 
  there's a balance we need to strike and we need to talk about it 
  a bit more before we put something in the charter about it
Manu Sporny:  So that being said, any comments on the charter as 
  it stands?
Dave Longley:  I think we should try to be minimalistic about it, 
  to make sure that the charter doesn't cause problems w/ the 
  group. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Evan Schwartz:  I looked at it before the call and it seemed 
  perfectly fine to me
Manu Sporny:  I think the way it's written should make the Ripple 
  and Bitcoin work be considered in scope
Evan Schwartz:  I saw the part about it being about web payments 
  and not specific currencies and we agree with that
Evan Schwartz:  And i do think this group does touch on identity 
  and security and stuff like that
Joseph Potvin:  We may add a phrase at the bottom to say that 
  partner entries could be added and that wouldn't require a new 
  vote/amendment on the charter
Manu Sporny:  Ok, i'll put that in
Joseph Potvin:  Should we include the work items too?
Manu Sporny:  No we can't do that, that is a scoping issue, 
  lawyers will look at that to sign off on whether or not their 
  engineers can participate in the group
Manu Sporny:  For work items we have to recharter to give lawyers 
  time to look and see if they still agree with the list
Manu Sporny:  Any other comments/questions on the charter?
Dave Longley:  It certainly seems like the charter defines what 
  we've been doing for the past several years and what we've been 
  doing. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Joseph Potvin:  In the decision process i don't think we have a 
  sentence or two describing charter approval or revision
Manu Sporny:  To accept the charter is a 2/3rds vote
Manu Sporny:  I did that to accept the charter because i think we 
  should have a supermajority
Joseph Potvin:  Oh, nevermind it is in there
Joseph Potvin:  I wonder if the amendment to the charter is a 
  section under decision processes
Manu Sporny:  In general we don't want to bikeshed it too much, 
  the information is there, and we could call it a day and it would 
  be formatting change not a significant change to the charter
Manu Sporny:  If anyone on the mailing list doesn't like a 
  formatting change they can call for a vote on the change
Dave Longley:  Will we send the version of the charter to the 
  mailing list and save a link to the specific revision?
Manu Sporny:  Yes, i'll send it to the mailing list and we have 
  it in github and we'll put it on the website too
Manu Sporny:  If everyone is more or less ok with it we can call 
  for a vote and we can resolve that here and call for a vote 
  starting tomorrow
Joseph Potvin:  It's a separate vote on the work items though?
Manu Sporny:  Yes
Manu Sporny:  Two different votes
Manu Sporny:  One for charter, one for work items
Joseph Potvin:  Just don't want people to get confused
Manu Sporny:  We can put both votes out at the same time and make 
  it clear there are two polls to participate in
Joseph Potvin is scribing.

PROPOSAL:  The Web Payments CG Charter Proposal is ready for a 
  vote, the vote will open on January 16th 2014 and close on 
  January 31st 2014.

Manu Sporny: +1
Dave Longley: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Joseph Potvin: +1
Evan Schwartz: +1

RESOLUTION: The Web Payments CG Charter Proposal is ready for a 
  vote, the vote will open on January 16th 2014 and close on 
  January 31st 2014.

Topic: Web Payments CG Charter Poll

Manu Sporny: The Poll is here - 
Manu Sporny:  Please take a look at the language for the poll, 
  point out any issues.
Dave Longley: We Might want the charter link to use a revision 
Manu Sporny: Yeah, Agreed. I'll add it.
Manu Sporny:  Introductory section - this polling approach 
  approach permits any polling system and also anonymity
Manu Sporny:  Stepping through the questions on the Charter vote 
  -- any concerns about the questions?
Dave Longley:  The vote on the charter approval itself is only 
  approve or not with no abstain thought other questions have an 
  abstain option? That's what the decision process in the charter 
Dave Longley:  What is different between routine decision making 
  and calling a vote?
Manu Sporny:  Adjusting text in "decision process" section to 
  clarify three kinds of processes
Joseph Potvin:  If a person is opposed but won't stand in the way 
  that's working consensus #1, if someone is opposed and does want 
  to prevent a decision that's #2 [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
Dave Longley:  The three kinds now work as increasing validation 
  of a decision . Second stage formally acknowledges a 
  disagreement. An opposed individual can then seek two others who 
  agree that stage-3 vote is needed.
Dave Longley:  Three decision stages should show escalation
Manu Sporny:  Ok, made those changes to the decision making 
  process in the charter. Are there any further comments on the 
Dave Longley:  In the poll, change "will adopting" to "adopting" 
  -- as a statement
Manu Sporny:  Done. Any further comments?
No Further comments, group agrees on poll questions.

PROPOSAL:  Adopt the Web Payments CG Charter Proposal poll and 
  use it to determine consensus on the groups charter.

Joseph Potvin: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Evan Schwartz: +1

RESOLUTION: Adopt the Web Payments CG Charter Proposal poll and 
  use it to determine consensus on the groups charter.

Manu Sporny:  We need to talk about the vote on in-scope specs

Topic: Web Payments CG Work Items Poll

Manu Sporny: 
Manu Sporny:  If everyone on the call can scan the poll and raise 
  any problems with the poll, that'd be great.
Joseph Potvin:  The working in Q6 about pricing indices should 
  not refer to any particular unit of account (re: Bitcoin).
Manu Sporny:  Ok, change made.
David I. Lehn:  What happens if people accept a higher-level spec 
  (like Web Payments), but then reject a lower-level spec (like 
  Secure Messaging) that the higher-level spec depends on? What 
  happens if people that are not educated about how these specs fit 
  together vote against some of the lower-level specs that the 
  higher level ones depend on?
Manu Sporny:  We'd have to figure that out if it happens. It 
  could be something as simple as a message out to the mailing list 
  noting that the group just shot itself in the foot. A re-vote 
  could be held and if people still vote against the low-level 
  spec, then we'd have to ask for alternatives to that low-level 
  spec. In general, we're expecting people to make an educated 
  decision about these specs w/o needing to understand all the 
David I. Lehn:  Sometimes it's not clear why we use a given 
  technlology or take a given approach, except wading through email 
  list archives.
Manu Sporny:  Hard to bring all the info together in an elegant 
  and efficient way, we're trying, and we need to do a better job 
  on that. That's why there is a short explanation of each spec and 
  what it does by each vote item.
David I. Lehn:  Some might say some items are better addressed 
  elsewhere, for example - but it's much easier to work on all of 
  this stuff in one group until it matures a bit more, easier to 
  change dependencies in all the specs. It could be that lots of 
  people abstain.
Manu Sporny:  A high number of abstentions would indicate that 
  members feel a lack of info, so we might have to educate and vote 
  again as a group.
Dave Longley:  Are abstentions counted in the calculation of a 
Manu Sporny:  An abstention is not count as a cast vote in favor 
  or against, no it doesn't count.
Manu Sporny:  This is now clarifired in the poll
Dave Longley:  Should we state the function of abstention in the 
  Charter decision section?
Manu Sporny:  I don't think it's necessary, we can always include 
  that information in the poll. If we find that we do it for every 
  poll, we could put it in the charter.
Manu Sporny:  Ok, let's all please read through each work item in 
  the work items poll and comment on anything that needs to be 
Joseph Potvin:  There was a discussion on the list about the form 
  of documentation and UML. Documentation is a controversial issue, 
  do we want to say that's part of this? [scribe assist by Manu 
Dave Longley:  If this is a controversial issue (how we document 
  things), perhaps we can leave it out for now? [scribe assist by 
  Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny:  Let's find out first what implementers will be 
  looking for in documentation. Let's not include here the "how" 
  and "what form" right now, because that's part of the process of 
  developing these documents.
Joseph Potvin:  I have concerns about the "Web Payment Intents" 
  item... for the purposes of the poll, can we refine the title? 
  [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny:  Sure, now it's Web Payment Crowdfunding
David I. Lehn: Q9 Links to http-keys which redirs to 
  secure-messaging. I was changing links last night to point to 
  secure-messaging, should the poll do so too?
Manu Sporny:  Yes, fixed.
Dave Longley:  Change "patent and royalty-free" to "unencumbered 
  by patents and royalties"
Manu Sporny:  Ok, changed.
Joseph Potvin:  Q3 text is problematic, needs to be updated to 
  new text from the Charter. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny:  Done, alignment of Q3 text to Goal section of 
Joseph Potvin:  Q6 suggested to refine but generalize the 
  examples of indices
Manu Sporny:  Fixing... added indexing examples, and example for 
  a baker and energy index
Manu Sporny:  Any other changes to the poll?
No Changes requested by the participants.

PROPOSAL:  Accept the questions in the modified Web Payments CG 
  Work Items poll and run the poll from January 16th to January 

Dave Longley: +1
Joseph Potvin: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Evan Schwartz: +1
David I. Lehn: +1

RESOLUTION: Accept the questions in the modified Web Payments CG 
  Work Items poll and run the poll from January 16th to January 

Manu Sporny:  The next call will cover the changes to the website 
  and then hopefully back into technical discussion.
Manu Sporny:  Any other comments or concerns before we adjourn? 
No Other comments.
Manu Sporny:  Talk with all of you next week, thanks for scribing 
  Joseph, you did great! :)
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 18:10:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:27 UTC