Re: Web Payments Interest Group Charter draft ready for review

Hi Jo,

apologies for the long-email - figured it was a point that's important
enough to scribe my thoughts on it, so it's looking more like a paper than
a response. Below are a rather extensive outline of concepts / ideas,
underpinning my belief that the group - should be primarily public, rather
than private.

I think the discussion is really very healthy - and i'm not precious about
things...  I try to reason considerations out, and work as part of a
broader team, hoping i'm contributing towards the best possible outcome as
someone who's entitled to a vote, or being heard.

so...

JO
I do understand your concerns; i've also worked in closed-loop practices
for a long-time, and i'm not even going to get started on non-disclosure
related antics, that have within themselves a whole new group of
threat-matrices.  Interestingly, those models may change rather
dramatically as more accountability capabilities and practices become
semantically linked to online activities. With applied RDF, being employed
within a specified role may be shown to not = being the primary contributor
of value to that particular need / role requirement, within an organisation
or project; and i'm looking forward to the stimulus such technologies
provide to innovation industries broadly.

WHY PUBLIC?
Economic Rights are a constituent of Human Rights.  With great humility, i
still ponder the level for which these works seek to support; the fact that
i'm Australian, with good common-law understandings, having worked somewhat
overseas; but not in all regions, and so many cultural practices are so
very different in so many places, in ways i've simply not translated yet.
I've tracked in past very significant discussions that are held between EU
/ UN groups, and the more US centric interests, understanding to some level
the linkages (many ages old) that provide bridges between the areas of
forum.  I still as yet, do not see the need for closed-loop development of
these areas of technology, which are more broadly RDF orientated - or Web
3.0.  In fact, if more stakeholders and representatives of stakeholders put
more of their thoughts out publicly - i think the public benefit would
continue to escalate.   TimBL (as an example) provides an enormous about of
data via public medium, which i think is enormously helpful...

CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS & INNOVATION
Incorporated Entities have sophisticated infrastructure in which teams
within such entities are able to consider new opportunities, for their
merits, and come-up with new mechanisms around how to manage opportunity
(cost / benefit, SWOT, etc.). However organisations can suffer from a lack
of discipline in thoroughly investigating new opportunities for their
merits, which can result in ad-hoc 'bold-on' outcomes, as particular
opportunities are deemed to be 'considered' by adapting existing business
systems to new opportunities with a few lines of code (perhaps in a few
languages).  I know large organisations are very good at cookie-cutting
where existing tooling is available in-house, or off the shelf; and that
innovation makers / markets can be disruptive.  Whilst many stories exist
(i'm sure, electricity and the lightbulb wasn't fondly considered by
alternative technology vendors at the time) The story of Napster and Sean
Parker, inclusive of his longer-term career is a great example of a
disrupter. If a study were done on the evolution of Napster (and later
products such as iTunes, Spotify, etc.) It would be interesting to track at
what juncture corporates involved were capable of being engaged to
innovate, what is clearly now, a massive market, implicating many millions
of humans on so many levels.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
Broadly speaking, in terms of volume of affected legal entities directly
(meaning natural or incorporated as entities: not agents.) i've had some
comfort in that the threads are public, the works are public, the humanity
of my messages are public - for the good, bad, yet to be considered and yet
to be figured out or made meaningful.

W3 / W3C is a complicated thing - at web-scale no less, which i'm still
wrapping my head around. I hope i provide food for thought, rather than
junk-food, fattening-up the mail-diet..  If the original proposal for WWW
were put together now, do you think it would get past the first few
hurdles?  I like to think, that given the group of member organisations
live behind the scenes; that the IG / CG related groups evolve
opportunities in ways that support a corporations needs in engaging with
new concepts & new opportunities that benefit eco-systems.

So, with such things in mind;

I think the philosophical outlook in which the original proposals were
brought together, and the modern need for a form of philosophical
engineering to make-up for issues throughout nascent markets, where legal
systems simply haven't caught-up yet; brings about opportunities to build
collaboratively, systems that have a cohesive structure; and that, rather
than engineering things in a sports-person like manner that may lead to a
seasons-ladder in who's strategy was more advantageously considered within
a privileged group of contributors; where risks become that of publicly
considered appropriate oversight.

COMPLEXITY OF SUBJECT MATTER
I do not believe this (a web-payments standard) is an easy endeavour. The
nexus of issues that this standard will seek to cover is rather enormous.
Politically, alot is going on around e-contracts and bitcoin. more
practically, in Australia, we have mostly thermally printed receipts, which
is a form of industry standard practices; and of course, whilst a receipt
is required for a warrantee claim AND Australian law provides protection to
consumers in such a way as to provide minimum expectations around warrantee
for certain product types; the simple choice between the delivery of a
thermal printed receipt, and a digital receipt, will likely be one of the
many issues that might have significant debate. What may be worse, is that
these events may then be used to revisit the opportunities for CRM both by
retailers directly, and by new market entrants who believe an opportunity
exists; for which i hope we've sorted out the privacy related specs in such
a way as it is empowering for the greater majority of natural legal
entities.

Obviously, in one band of 'legal entities' there's a marketing / sales
budget; in the other corner, humans.  I see W3C as a collective voice for
Humans, understanding it is brought together functionally by incorporated
entities.

BEST PRACTICE CONCEPTS
I consider the close-relationship between 'the law of the people' (the rule
of law) and commerce. Every good law is publicly available. Most government
has debate available in a public document (in Australian parliament, the
hansard). If corporations believe as legal entities it is too-risky to
disclose scientifically endorsable strategy (meaning technical / functional
requirements and underlying philosophies for a Web-Payments Spec) publicly,
well, i think it comes down to shared values, and perhaps also lawyers, who
love a good debate; and if any good legal reasons exist to ensure dev. is
done privately, i'd welcome the input.

In civics, shared-values are social-values that bind communities (such as
democracies, states, etc.) together.  These 'shared values' are generally
translated into instruments that apply to all legal entities.  It is my
hope, that human rights principles apply as a principle driver of economic
principles, and the science created in-order to develop, evolve and support
prosperity.

that said; Perhaps if private consultations are required for official
purpose, a charter around how that could be facilitated and reported (with
reasonable levels of diligence) to the public group, as to explain anything
that cannot be made public specifically.  Yet, even then - i don't like
opening the doors to darkness.  Not much good happens in the dark, well not
much that isn't better in the light anyhow.

Have you seen https://nrf.com/who-we-are/retail-communities/technology ??
 I note, most of the 'spec' is public. National Retail Federation supports
US retailers i'd imagine; The W3C is aligned to support... ?

If legal entities are subject to laws (whether public or private); it is
reasonable to provide the opportunity to understand the requirements.

FEARS & INVESTOR STRATEGIES
In relation to equity markets - VC, Private Equity and related investments;
the project is speculative up until the point that it is widely accepted in
utility, for a market-share of the web-payments industrial vertical.

In my experience, people running these funds (to make a profit) come-up
with all sorts of strategies.  In other industry verticals, they might be
collaboratively developing patent free medicinal solutions for diseases
that kill millions of people, yet undoubtably, legal challenges are
pursued. Yet, if they've found a revenue model to change the health-care
modelling as to provide more ubiquity to underlying human values - well,
i'd still support them, subject to their tactical processes of course...
 You'd only have to know about one person struggling with cancer before the
concepts of humanity start toying with the expectations of equity markets,
and a personal positioning statement in how you'd best fit into that cycle.
Understanding of course, integrity of process is simply the best way
overall no-matter the circumstance, which i think public forum therein
supports.

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF STANDARDS
We're dealing with the means and mechanisms on how people are fairly
rewarded economically.  How people become entitled to feeding themselves,
resourcing medical care, mechanisms that can support fair and reasonable
economic distribution of reward for work, subject to the laws of the
lands..  What are the consequences to philosophies (and conventions) of
human rights without equity, commerce; application of what the web-payments
standards methods are attempting to achieve.

UNDERSTAND RDF - What is Webizing http://www.w3.org/community/webize/
It challenging to bring about ubiquity with regard to the concepts of
applying decentralised RDF technology; and how things may change.  With
great frustration, i see some looking at RDF as a means to provide a bigger
and better funnel, for not so awesome reasons (when looking at it from a
users-point of view).  I also believe, that the biggest driver of this; is
that people simply think in relational DB terms.

So to break-down some of those barriers (which also includes IMO, some
rather substantial changes to the stakeholder analysis; from the
traditional 'geek' of W3 forums) it is possible to be inclusive and
accessible public; and in doing so, i believe the greatest potential can be
achieved and measurably delivered, perhaps in stages; as an important
constituent to future web-systems.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS UPON TALENT & STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES
Perhaps some assistance could beneficially be provided to potential
stakeholders who require a private engagement policy agenda 'revamp' as to
support engagement within public domain.   I'm also not sure what the
legals are around representations or other factors that relate to
development.

Perhaps another way of 'looking at it'; is that an individuals contract may
allow them to participate as an individual, and perhaps sponsor them to do
so, within a predefined scope.  Perhaps a form could be generated that
might provide a precedent outline of what sort of encumbrances need to be
considered therein.  I imagine, using a privately owned or affiliated
email, or an appropriately defined footer; might be a consideration
therein.


On 19 May 2014 13:13, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> Timothy,  Even though 100% of my work for the past 15 years in both
> commercial and public sectors has been on free/libre/open source
> projects and policies, I still wish to highlight the sorts of
> considerations that diverse types of participants have when engaging
> in negotiations towards genuine standards. To provide another example,
> given how ridiculously fickle equity markets are, sometimes it can be
> risky for a company with literal vested interests in an incumbent
> payments system to even discuss hypothetically the possibility of
> their currently lucrative system being abandoned. If you want the
> incumbents to explore significant hypotheticals, and to honestly
> consider the relative merits of other options without freaking out
> their own marketing and licensing wonks, then you need to cut them
> some slack to have exploratory discussions off the record. The W3C
> seems to me an excellent forum in which to do that. But the scale is
> hardly binary between fully transparent and fully secret.
>
> Joseph
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Timothy Holborn
> <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think people mix-up the underlying requirements of parsing Web-Payments
> > between private systems (ie: banking platforms) and the needs of
> Web-Systems
> > to support Web-Pages / Web-Services incorporating Web-Payments...
> >
> > Banking systems, sophisticated cryptography systems, Contracts and other
> > 'commercial IPR' (and related) is certainly done in private.
> >
> > I believe these types of 'private systems' are outside of scope for the
> > Web-Payments Standards Work.  I therefore believe that although some
> > discussion will be had aside public works; the standards works should be
> > both transparent and public overall.
> >
> > I fail to understand how the best possible outcome could be achieved by
> > undertaking this project privately; nor, do i understand why or what
> > elements within the standards work could require confidentiality and/or a
> > private forum in which to produce a web-user-centric standard for general
> > purpose use.
> >
> > I therefore believe that the undertaking should be public.
> >
> > Perhaps, as a side note; an exclusion list could be defined in such a
> way as
> > to ensure the scope is well defined, that the cohesive structure of an
> > end-to-end web-payments system can and will be produced, and
> acknowledgement
> > of areas where 3rd party integration may occur (utilising technology /
> > systems developed in private) in a manner that is supportive of the
> intent,
> > to establish a web-payment standard that is open, akin to the benefits of
> > HTML / HTTP for Internet Protocol Data, Publishing & Communications
> systems.
> >
> >
> > On 19 May 2014 12:40, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> RE: "closed meetings"
> >>
> >> Consider the United Way's view on this topic, as one example:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.unitedwaync.org/sites/uwncarolina.oneeach.org/files/filedepot/incoming/Executive%20Sessions.pdf
> >>
> >> Joseph
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Steven Rowat <
> steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> RE: "potentially to do this transfer among themselves without
> middlemen
> >> >> actors"
> >> >>
> >> >> ...except for all those who enable the Web to operate, and the
> >> >> Internet to operate.
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >>  There will always be intermediaries of some sort.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes but designated common carriers (like the telephone company) are
> >> > regulated differently, since it's been decided it's a shared public
> >> > resource. Perhaps the Web Payments standard should be like this, in
> >> > which
> >> > case the 'middlemen actors' would be an evenly spread part of the web
> >> > commerce resource that we all get to use,  --just as I pay for a phone
> >> > line
> >> > and Walmart pays for phone lines, but Walmart doesn't get to decide
> >> > whether
> >> > and how individual users can have phone service. So, if the Web
> Payments
> >> > is
> >> > treated as a shared resource, perhaps Google/Microsoft/Corp. X
> shouldn't
> >> > be
> >> > allowed to consult in the W3C in secret about how the payments system
> >> > would
> >> > be standardized.
> >> >
> >> > Treating the Web Payments as such a shared resource, a type of common
> >> > carrier, would I suppose be a specific step that would require
> >> > government
> >> > decision -- like the FCC is mulling over the ISP common carrier status
> >> > at
> >> > the moment.
> >> >
> >> > http://bgr.com/2014/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality-plan-mozilla/
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps that's a fruitful discussion to have here too, before deciding
> >> > on
> >> > what the Web Payments system will look like or even whether the IG can
> >> > be
> >> > secret or public.
> >> >
> >> > On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> RE: "making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level on
> >> >> the basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large
> >> >> or small, established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort
> the
> >> >> needs of those billions of people who may not want or need to be
> >> >> involved with the companies when they make their web or phone
> >> >> payments"
> >> >>
> >> >> First, the W3C membership involves more than "companies".
> >> >> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
> >> >> Second, they are not at all monolithic in their interests and long
> >> >> terms
> >> >> goals.
> >> >> Third, who said "secret"?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > First point, true, that was sloppy, I apologize. I wish there was a
> >> > simple
> >> > way (mashup pie graph? Where the semantic web when you need it?) to
> >> > figure
> >> > out the proportions of industry/academic/government membership of the
> >> > W3C,
> >> > but I haven't seen one. The current consortium member list appears to
> be
> >> > majority companies versus the other two types, IMO, however.
> >> >
> >> > In terms of financial support, I also wish there was a pie graph, or
> >> > even a
> >> > table, of the revenue source totals (by type of institution), but I
> >> > can't
> >> > find that either, or an audit.
> >> >
> >> > But nonetheless, what I can find points to the fact that for-profit
> >> > members
> >> > pay between 4 and 70 times as much as non-profit members for
> membership,
> >> > dependent on the size of company and the stage of development of the
> >> > country
> >> > it's situated in.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees.php?showall=1#results
> >> >
> >> > If we combine this with the fact that, say, 50% of the members are
> >> > for-profit (which may be low), then it's clear that the large majority
> >> > of
> >> > the fees are paid by for-profit companies. Maybe 80%? 90%? Possibly
> more
> >> > than that.
> >> >
> >> > However, according to the W3C published Revenue Model
> >> > (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/facts#revenue) in addition to the fees
> >> > above
> >> > there are also:
> >> > -- sponsorships
> >> >     http://www.w3.org/Consortium/sponsor/
> >> >    (ie, this year IntelXDK, Platinum Sponsor, 150K USD, ICANN, Silver
> >> > Sponsor, 50K USD)
> >> > --  and a list of programs that are funded
> >> >     http://www.w3.org/Consortium/nmfunds
> >> >    (but given no amount -- just the program details and who funded
> it.)
> >> >
> >> > In sum, it's hard to generalize about the W3C funding because it's
> >> > distributed...but it looks from the above that a large majority of
> their
> >> > revenue comes from for-profit companies.
> >> >
> >> > I also find it interesting, in terms of the public/private question,
> the
> >> > fact that there is no easy way to get an overview of how much money
> >> > flows at
> >> > the W3C relative to corporate/academic/government sources, or
> >> > individuals
> >> > for that matter. Is anyone aware of a place where this information
> might
> >> > be
> >> > held?
> >> >
> >> > And so we come to Joseph's "Third, who said 'secret'?"
> >> >
> >> > Hm, apparently I did. But isn't that just as good a word for what's
> >> > being
> >> > discussed? The IG charter proposal states the option as working
> >> > 'internally
> >> > as a closed group and query the community on regular basis through the
> >> > publication of draft documents'.
> >> >
> >> > The 'closed group' means that communications around a decision are not
> >> > made
> >> > public, correct? Those communications are then 'secret', aren't they?
> >> > Not
> >> > the draft decisions themselves, granted -- but still, it would be a
> >> > consensus process that excludes outside individuals from participating
> >> > because certain key parts are 'closed'. Secret.
> >> >
> >> > That's similar to a peer-reviewed journal publishing a paper based on
> a
> >> > data
> >> > set and the data not being public. And given the (perhaps
> unintentional)
> >> > difficulty of ferreting out details of W3C funding amounts, it's also
> >> > like
> >> > the authors of that paper not declaring the source of the funding for
> >> > the
> >> > study. AFAIK, this is now a requirement for most peer-reviewed science
> >> > papers -- declaring funding sources; because (as I remember reading
> in a
> >> > meta-study, though I don't have a link handy) it's been shown that
> >> > funding
> >> > influences the result, even when the researchers don't believe they
> >> > themselves are influenced by where their funding comes from.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> RE: "because those billions of people don't know what they want yet,
> >> >> and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the new
> >> >> money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems
> unfair
> >> >> and in the long run counterproductive"
> >> >>
> >> >> I think this statement sounds absurd, but that's probably not how you
> >> >> intended it. Can you clarify by what means you would see "billions"
> >> >> engaging the issues?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I didn't mean billions would engage with the discussion; of course
> only
> >> > a
> >> > few would. What I meant was that interested individuals who choose to
> >> > follow
> >> > the discussion could input during the process. If it's a closed group,
> >> > then
> >> > not even a representative interested few would be able to engage in
> the
> >> > process itself -- except for the people who are already in the
> >> > organizations
> >> > and companies inside the W3C.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Steven
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Steven Rowat
> >> >> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thank you Stephane and Joseph for the clarifications about the
> context
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> W3C public/private decisions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But Joseph's wording, in particular the way he uses 'stakeholders',
> >> >>> prompts
> >> >>> me to  take issue with the relevance of this W3C context -- within
> the
> >> >>> larger context of payments in a redesigned global money system that
> >> >>> billions
> >> >>> human beings may end up using.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Joseph, you say:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate
> from,
> >> >>>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who
> >> >>>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it
> >> >>>> issues.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Perhaps so; and the W3C may well function as an 'industry standards
> >> >>> body',
> >> >>> but the web payments system could end up being used globally to
> >> >>> transfer
> >> >>> value by people who are not part of any company, and importantly,
> >> >>> potentially to do this transfer among themselves without middlemen
> >> >>> actors,
> >> >>> -- so making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level on
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large or
> >> >>> small,
> >> >>> established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort the needs
> of
> >> >>> those
> >> >>> billions of people who may not want or need to be involved with the
> >> >>> companies when they make their web or phone payments. This is
> >> >>> potentially
> >> >>> true even--especially--because those billions of people don't know
> >> >>> what
> >> >>> they
> >> >>> want yet, and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the new
> >> >>> money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems
> unfair
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> in the long run counterproductive.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You close by saying:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>   Issues regarding openness/closedness of
> >> >>>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a
> >> >>>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And this sums it up for me as well: I believe the word
> 'stakeholder',
> >> >>> in
> >> >>> terms of a web payment system, needs to be extended to apply to all
> >> >>> humans
> >> >>> on the planet, or at least all those who will use the web or a
> mobile
> >> >>> phone
> >> >>> for commerce of any sort in the next twenty years -- maybe 5 billion
> >> >>> people?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (According to this NYT article [1], 'stakeholder' in its modern form
> >> >>> dates
> >> >>> from after 1964, so it's a new usage. We can redefine it again,
> can't
> >> >>> we?
> >> >>> :-) )
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Steven
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [1]
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/05/magazine/on-language-stakeholders-naff-i-m-chuffed.html
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 5/18/14 10:44 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'd like to add a thought along the lines of Stephane's comments
> (and
> >> >>>> I hope he will correct me if what I say is inconsistent with what
> he
> >> >>>> and the W3C team have in mind).
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Although the W3C's membership includes companies with a diversity
> of
> >> >>>> business perspectives, my own frame of reference on the topic of
> >> >>>> role-based access to project decisions is based upon this
> collection
> >> >>>> of sources about the "Foundations of Free/Libre/Open Works
> >> >>>> Management"
> >> >>>> the I and others have been assembling:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> http://osi.xwiki.com/bin/Projects/draft-flow-syllabus#HFoundationsofFLOWManagement
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate
> from,
> >> >>>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who
> >> >>>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it
> >> >>>> issues. While it is closely linked to the free/libre/open way, I
> >> >>>> reckon it should not be expected to operate entirely as if it were
> a
> >> >>>> free/libre/open project foundation like, say, the R Foundation or
> the
> >> >>>> Apache Foundation. This is not a criticism, it's just a recognition
> >> >>>> that it's a different sort of entity. It shares some but not all
> the
> >> >>>> characteristics. My impression is that the staff of the W3C as a
> >> >>>> industry standards consortium have a greater direct role and
> >> >>>> responsibility for the scope, substance and quality of its outputs
> >> >>>> than is the case with free/libre/open software foundations, which
> are
> >> >>>> essentially facilitators in various ways.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Adding on top of that, the fact that the functional realm of web
> >> >>>> payments is already heavily populated with incumbents that span the
> >> >>>> range from the most powerful financial institutions on the planet
> to
> >> >>>> the tiniest of start-ups, the balancing act that the W3C staff have
> >> >>>> to
> >> >>>> accomplish if the organization is to host the development of a
> >> >>>> standard on this topic is about as complex a
> negotiation/coordination
> >> >>>> job as can be thought up.  Issues regarding openness/closedness of
> >> >>>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a
> >> >>>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Joseph Potvin
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> My apologies for joining late this discussion but i was traveling.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I believe I need to bring some clarity on some of the points that
> >> >>>>> were
> >> >>>>> brought in this discussion.
> >> >>>>>    yes W3C develops open and patent-free standards. The
> development
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> standards is done in an open way and involve public feedback at
> >> >>>>> different
> >> >>>>> points in the process, see
> >> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html/
> >> >>>>> In particular, the stage called "Last Call" requires all comments
> >> >>>>> received
> >> >>>>> by the working group (WG) to be addressed, responded and agreed by
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>> commenter. So i believe we can safely say that the development of
> >> >>>>> specifications at W3C is open and transparent.
> >> >>>>> However, there is a big difference between having a WG (or a IG)
> >> >>>>> requesting
> >> >>>>> regularly the feedback of the public, and having a WG working in
> >> >>>>> public.
> >> >>>>> Usually feedback is requested on documents that represent
> consensus
> >> >>>>> within
> >> >>>>> the WG. While working in public requires that each member exposes
> >> >>>>> its
> >> >>>>> own
> >> >>>>> view in public.
> >> >>>>> I'm all in favor of working in public. More than just
> transparency,
> >> >>>>> it
> >> >>>>> is
> >> >>>>> usually easier to manage feedback from external parties. People
> can
> >> >>>>> see
> >> >>>>> e.G.
> >> >>>>> why specific design were ruled out, how consensus was developed
> etc.
> >> >>>>> For that reason i put in the draft charter the proposal to have
> the
> >> >>>>> group
> >> >>>>> working in public.
> >> >>>>> However, there are also a number of groups at W3C not working in
> >> >>>>> public.
> >> >>>>> There all kind of reasons for that. Some organizations are not
> >> >>>>> willing
> >> >>>>> to
> >> >>>>> expose their opinions in public but are happy to participate in
> the
> >> >>>>> consensus building. Sometimes it is just a matter of communication
> >> >>>>> policy,
> >> >>>>> where organizations send people that are not allowed to speak in
> >> >>>>> public.
> >> >>>>> Again there might be many reasons.
> >> >>>>> Here we are in the process of bringing a new community on board.
> We
> >> >>>>> must
> >> >>>>> understand what is acceptable and what is not for the members of
> >> >>>>> this
> >> >>>>> community. I'm here to learn. That's why, while proposing to work
> in
> >> >>>>> public,
> >> >>>>> i'm also willing to get feedback whether this is an issue for some
> >> >>>>> members
> >> >>>>> of this community or not.
> >> >>>>> If it is not an issue, then fine. if it is an issue then we will
> see
> >> >>>>> what
> >> >>>>> to
> >> >>>>> do. But it is essential to let all organizations know that this
> >> >>>>> option
> >> >>>>> is
> >> >>>>> on
> >> >>>>> the table and the charter development CG is here to build
> consensus
> >> >>>>> on
> >> >>>>> how
> >> >>>>> we will work in the future.
> >> >>>>> I hope this clarify a bit the discussion?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Steph
> >> >>>>> Le 15/05/2014 23:58, Melvin Carvalho a écrit :
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 15 May 2014 23:50, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> >> >>>>>> <mailto: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
> >> >>>>>>       <mailto: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?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>       -- 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/
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>> Stephane Boyera        stephane@w3.org
> >> >>>>> W3C                +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27
> >> >>>>> BP 93
> >> >>>>> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
> >> >>>>> France
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joseph Potvin
> >> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> >> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> >> jpotvin@opman.ca
> >> Mobile: 819-593-5983
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
>