Re: Web Payments Interest Group Charter draft ready for review

I presume some of the concern (leading to a request for work to be private)
may relate to aspects that I would consider to better be defined as
scope-creep.


On 16 May 2014 07:58, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 15 May 2014 23:50, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/15/2014 01:34 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
>> > On 2014-05-15, at 6:28 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> The option to run the payments work in a closed group, except for
>> >> the publication of drafts, is now on the table. This is concerning
>> >
>> > +1 Where is this proposal made? I can't see it in the links you sent.
>> > The IG is so far listed as Public. ?
>>
>> """
>> I would be happy to know if the payment industry is more likely going to
>> be interested in working in public or internally as a closed group and
>> query the community on regular basis through the publication of draft
>> documents.
>> """
>>
>> In the last bullet item in the list here:
>>
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpaymentsigcharter/2014/05/15/first-draft-of-future-web-payments-interest-group-charter-published/
>>
>> > But IMO It already looks from the proposed Charter that the various
>> > forms and arms of the existing financial services industry are being
>> > overly recognized and served by the IG, with 'users' tacked on at
>> > the end as sort of an afterthought, as if a revolution in the way
>> > finances are carried on isn't going to happen. That may be true, but
>> > it may not.
>>
>> Part of this could be fueled by the W3C wanting to attract as many new
>> members as it can into the work. Keep in mind that W3C is going to have
>> to bring on a couple of big members if this work is going to proceed.
>> They need these new members because 1) there is a lot of work to be
>> done, and W3C needs the money to accomplish that new work, and 2) we
>> need to make sure that we have solid representation from the payment
>> industry and that they're interested in implementing this stuff that
>> we're proposing. If the option is not getting them onboard and not
>> starting the work vs. getting them on board and running the work in a
>> closed fashion, then that's going to be a hard decision to make for W3C.
>>
>> That said, I think it would be a disaster for W3C to run the official
>> work behind closed doors. There should be enough organizations that want
>> to run this work the way W3C runs most all of its other work; in full
>> view of the public.
>>
>
> W3C is a member of openstand:
>
> http://open-stand.org/principles/
>
> [[
>
> *Transparency.* Standards organizations provide advance public notice of
> proposed standards development activities, the scope of work to be
> undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible records of
> decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions are provided.
> Public comment periods are provided before final standards approval and
> adoption.
>
> ...
>
> *Openness.* Standards processes are open to all interested and informed
> parties.
>
> ]]
>
> While some work may be done in private, I presume anything related to
> *standards* would be made public?
>

+1


>
>
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> --
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
>>
>>
>