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

Re: Two wording changes to eliminate ambiguity

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:08:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSrVQ0WiiON6=8TndM0ikK2oJkg2XBjtXXYP8vA3Fzve8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Here's an example of a problem that can be resolved through the
availability of benchmarked pricing:

Some consider that "nobody else on this list is asking for benchmarked
pricing".  But here's what I ask myself:

1. Who benefits from such ad hoc pricing "surcharges" applied in
hodge-podge manner?  Anybody at all? It seems to me that this ad hocism
just creates unnecessary complexity and uncertainty in a market.

2. Which scenario is preferred for a web payments standard?

(a) A web payments standard that does not include a spec for price
benchmarking will thus by default require that both algorithmic and ad hoc
adjustments MUST be handled in diverse ways by implementers of the
standard, since there will be no standard-compliant way to handle them;

(b) A web payments standard that does describe a spec for price
benchmarking will enable the possibility that both algorithmic and ad hoc
adjustments MAY be handled in a common and transparent way, for any vendors
that choose to do so.

Thoughts anyone?

Joseph Potvin

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> 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:
> https://github.com/web-payments/web-payments.org/issues/9#issuecomment-32883022
> 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! :)
Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 15:09:50 UTC

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