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

Two wording changes to eliminate ambiguity

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:12:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSoYhwejA+FYJvjA-xs+MvHP7-5A7sjLxFFa+r8w2JE55A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: [Joseph Potvin]: Q6 suggested to refine but generalize the examples of
indices https://web-payments.org/minutes/2014-01-15/

After current two votes are completed, I suggest that we change all
references to "pricing index" or "indexed pricing" as follows:
1. [from "price" to "value"] and [from "pricing" to "valuation"]
2. [from "index" to "benchmark"] and [from "indexing" to "benchmarking"]

Rationale explained here:

Joseph Potvin

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Thanks to Joseph Potvin for scribing this week! The minutes
> for this week's Web Payments telecon are now available:
> https://web-payments.org/minutes/2014-01-15/
> 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
> Agenda:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Jan/0112.html
> Topics:
>   1. Web Payments CG Charter Proposal
>   2. Web Payments CG Charter Poll
>   3. Web Payments CG Work Items Poll
> Resolutions:
>   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
>     2014.
>   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.
> Chair:
>   Manu Sporny
> Scribe:
>   Joseph Potvin
> Present:
>   Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Joseph Potvin, Evan Schwartz, David I.
>   Lehn
> Audio:
>   http://payswarm.com/minutes/2014-01-15/audio.ogg
> 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:
> http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/WebPaymentsCommunityGroupCharterProposal
> 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
>   commitments.
> 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 -
> http://www.addpoll.com/msporny/survey/web-payments-community-group-charter
> 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
>   number
> 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
>   says.
> 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
>   poll?
> 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:
>   http://www.addpoll.com/msporny/survey/web-payments-cg-work-items
> 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
>   details.
> 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
>   majority?
> 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
>   fixed
> 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
>   Sporny]
> 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
>   Charter
> 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
>   31st.
> 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
>   31st.
> 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! :)

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
Mobile: 819-593-5983
LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 13:13:38 UTC

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