Re: Payments activity - any point to our time and effort?

On 3/11/16 3:34 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 21:32 Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com
> <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
>     For the sake of progress Manu proposed that we simply adopt the
>     browser vendor spec so we could move on. This was a very selfless
>     act as Manu, Dave and others had put a great deal of effort into
>     the CG proposals. Ultimately we were always going to disappoint
>     one group of proposal editors.
>
> At what cost?
>
>     Personally I believe the CG proposal was better, more mature and I
>     preferred the shape of the API. However there was not consensus
>     and by picking a proposal we were able to spend the next day more
>     productively.
>
> yet accept the outcome?
>
>     I don't believe the browser vendors dedicated enough (any?) time
>     to looking at the CG proposals and because of that were nervous to
>     even consider adopting them even when it became clear there was
>     very little difference between them. Manu was understandably
>     frustrated at this and I think this should be addressed at the AC
>     meeting.
>
> any?  consideration of the few actors in the room on a standard that
> will impact humanity and the means in which things get economic
> attribution is successfully based upon a tactical situation of which
> denotes these types of considerations?
>
> IMHO, What needs to be addressed at the AC meeting indeed includes
> whether Manu is 'understandably Frustrated' and the implications,
> broadly...

+1 to Tim's comments above.

IMO we're witnessing a pivotal confrontation between two fundamentally 
different types of decision-making: co-operative and competitive.

The CG functions on consensus, and there are a substantial number of 
members who believe that this consensus is predicated on the 
usefulness for the whole of humanity.

The browser 'vendors' operative on a competitive (fiat-money-based) 
model, in which those with the most money make decisions. If you want 
to make the decision, you get some money and buy into the process.

It's not very different from the huge political storm brewing in the 
USA over the right to influence elections with donation money. Should 
billionaires have more power in the political process.

Seems like the same question to me.

And I think it can be especially tricky when these two types of people 
come into the same room to try to make a decision.

And especially especially tricky if you add a third fundamental human 
ability into the mix: deception/denial. People can have a 
psychology/philosophy that's skewed towards competitive, but think 
they're co-operative, or represent themselves as co-operative, or 
both. And the reverse.

Perhaps this is what's called diplomacy...  :-)


Steven Rowat

Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 18:22:08 UTC