- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 06:37:12 -0400
- To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: "perhaps others will use the opportunity to pressure, maneuver or cajole for continuation of their 'currently lucrative system' in a way that wouldn't be possible in a fully public communication medium" I don't know what "way" you mean. I would anticipate some of the same pressuring, maneuvering and cajoling they (and we) do out in the open. So what? I see no value-added for that via some "closed" meetings. The value-added that I do see with some closed meetings is a venue where strongman posturing can be relaxed, and the participants are more able to explore possible paths to collaboration outside the norm. Joseph On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: > On 5/18/14 8:13 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >> >> 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. > > > That's a good example, --and I'm sure such incumbents exist who would prefer > to participate more fully in closed sessions. But... > >> The W3C >> seems to me an excellent forum in which to do that. > > > Perhaps, except the possible gain of their ideas and input needs to be > balanced against the possible losses of the ideas and input of individuals > who have no membership in the W3C, as well as those who may be offended/put > off/suspicious of any lack of transparency in the process and on that basis > may choose not to participate. > > And the latter two groups may justifiably wonder if the 'incumbents' you > speak of with vested interests would actually 'honestly' consider the > relative merits of other options in a closed session. Perhaps some will do > that, but perhaps others will use the opportunity to pressure, maneuver or > cajole for continuation of their 'currently lucrative system' in a way that > wouldn't be possible in a fully public communication medium. > > Steven > > > > > > 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
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 10:38:02 UTC