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

RE: Two wording changes to eliminate ambiguity

From: Reutzel, Bailey <bailey.reutzel@sourcemedia.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:13:50 +0000
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <114A362579072745A265E71E5676C9BC1225DB3C@MBX202.domain.local>
I'm not sure if this is something you're interested in discussing, but this is another reason why I'd support a global digital currency, like Bitcoin or for that matter any of these other decentralized digital currencies.

But (I think) if we don't implement some kind of open web payments standard like email with digital currency soon, governments will likely move to "take over" these digital currencies, creating their own, which will then fluctuate like our national currencies do today. And then we'll have the same surcharging problem... huh?

What kind of standard for surcharging could be implemented? You can't tell businesses what they can and can't charge... Or I mean you really shouldn't because of competitive reasons. And would the standard then depend how much the national currency is fluctuating below the next?

Just some quick thoughts... I hope they're concise enough. :)

From: Joseph Potvin [mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:09 AM
To: Web Payments CG
Subject: Re: Two wording changes to eliminate ambiguity

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<mailto: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:

Joseph Potvin

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
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<http://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! :)

"This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is confidential and not for third party unauthorized distribution"
Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 18:14:21 UTC

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