<scribe> Scribe: David Ezell

<scribe> scribenick:dezell

<manu> dezell: Walkthrough of work you've done so far might be good.

Agenda Bashing and Previous Minutes Approval

<manu> https://www.w3.org/2014/11/20-wpay-minutes.html

<manu> Katie: Do we really need to approve the minutes every time?

<Ryladog> No we dont....:-)

<manu> manu: I think the reason we're approving minutes right now is because we have so many new members, we're trying to get them used to the process.

<manu> dezell: We also want to remind people to look at the minutes, as a reminder, keep continuity.

<manu> Katie: I think reminding people for the first couple of months, one of the requirements is to keep current with the minutes. Often, if people can't make the meeting read them. People that don't, read them when meeting is over.

<manu> Katie: Sticking it up here is a good thing, if you want to save time, this would be a place to do it.

<manu> Katie: Makes sense that you're doing this until everyone is up to speed.

<manu> manu: A week long wait is also difficult when trying to make information public and communicate with Web Payments CG.

<manu> dezell: We have the week-long wait to make sure members approve of minutes.

manu: one problem with minutes here is the week long lag between the work and minutes.

<manu> dezell: We're trying to be respectful of new members, posting things as soon as we have them is concerning to some of the new members.

<manu> Katie: There are ways to speak that don't point the finger at anyone - that's why people on WG have a responsibility to not embarass the company. If they're not there, they haven't said anything. Other point of being able to have the opportunity to put in a comment (via an emote - using the /me syntax) allows them to be a bit more free.

<manu> dezell: The problem is that they make mistakes now, some people were worried that they may have said too much. We have another large player that may be joining soon is very concerned about saying the wrong thing on the IG.

<manu> dezell: What I'd really like to do is not make it too mechanical, but summarize the findings - blog them into the home page. Even though it's a week behind, they see what we're doing.

<manu> Katie: People in the WGs are given this sort of guidance. They're not going to say anything until they know what they can/can't say.

<manu> dezell: I think it's important to note that people saying things about payments could be perceived as far more volatile than a big company saying something about WebRTC.

<manu> dezell: I think the original way that W3M approached the problem was to say that membership gets to review per week.

<manu> https://www.w3.org/2014/11/20-wpay-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: minutes approved.

Action Item Review

<manu> https://www.w3.org/2014/11/20-wpay-minutes.html

<manu> dezell: about this action "Erik to ask TC68 to get access for Use Case Task Force organizer to review ISO20022 and X9 use cases documents."

<manu> dezell: We have a meeting w/ the chair of TC68 next week, we'll report back after that happens.

manu: handover process for CG use cases, CG has approved the transition of the document.
... there is a bug in W3C software that allows publishing a final draft.
... we >think< we've done all the IP work, but systems team has not yet responded.

<manu> trackbot, ACTION-22

<trackbot> ACTION-22 -- Manu Sporny to Figure out how this group can officially use github. -- due 2014-12-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/actions/22

manu: not sure exactly how this connection will work.
... I know of a way to do this through Mercurial, and another way also.
... waiting on sys team.
... but the ability to update is ready.

<manu> dezell: I think if the use cases task force wants to start, if it looks reasonable like we can get this sync'ing working in the short term, I don't see it as a big risk to start using Github.

Web Payments CG Use Cases 1.0 Handoff

<manu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2014Nov/0064.html

manu: all the sentiment was positive for doing the handover.

<manu> Here's Daniel's question: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Nov/0109.html

<manu> here's my response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Nov/0110.html

manu: Daniel Austin asked the question - what is the intention of the IG going forward if the CG use cases are transfered.
... I think the concern was that the use cases might be simply rubber-stamped. I don't think that's the case.

dezell: no, they won't be rubber-stamped.

manu: futher, the use cases came (in large part) from the Workshop use cases.

<scribe> ACTION: dezell to put the actions from the previous TF meeting into trackbot [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/04-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Put the actions from the previous tf meeting into trackbot [on David Ezell - due 2014-12-11].

Assign Participants to Use Cases (divide/conquer)

<manu> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Use_Cases_Task_Force

manu: I've put all the use cases into the wiki as well as the design criteria.

<manu> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Use_Cases_Task_Force#Purchase_Request

manu: I toyed with giving each use case a separate page, but separate editable sections seems like the best way to go.

<Ryladog> +1 to keeping in one page until a more solid thing

manu: first job is to give >very< specific examples.

dezell: I think an environmental detail (browser or phone?) is missing.

manu: yes, that's exactly the kind of thing that should be in these examples.

katie: do you want to (per use case) have 3 different paradigms - mobile, desktop, set-top.
... I think we have to do our best to address "how the world is" today.

<manu> dezell: Main reason to keep mobile / automotive is that people outside of our group may get confused when we say "How payment is going to work in a web browser in your Mac at home and how it works on the mobile is the same."

<manu> dezell: It depends on this "wallet" / UPA concept - it may/may not be available depending on devices.

dezell: since we're short on folks today, should we not divvy them up\?

manu: maybe just assign the use cases to IG members.

dezell: suggest we start with TF members.

manu: maybe just send a call for review?

katie: should review be only the ones that are ready? Future proposals?

manu: 3.19 and 3.20 - these came out of the WP f2f not from the CG. Feel free to add new ones.
... I think all of these can use some clarification.
... requirements need clarification (a la RFC 2119).

katie: different people have different talents. So some people might do better examples vs. more technical sections.

<manu> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Use_Cases_Task_Force#Legacy_Support

manu: we need "design criteria"

<manu> So, we define design criteria like so: When exploring systems design, there are concepts that clearly fit into use cases and concepts apply to all use cases. We are calling the latter class of concepts design criteria, which are goals that should be kept in mind while designing the overall web payments system.

manu: I suggest people work on all aspects at once.

<manu> dezell: What's our next step?

<manu> dezell: Maybe we should just randomly assign for now.

<manu> manu: Sounds good.

<scribe> ACTION: manu to assign use cases (more or less at random) to people on the task force. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/04-wpay-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Assign use cases (more or less at random) to people on the task force. [on Manu Sporny - due 2014-12-11].

<manu> dezell: Going back to 6 phases of payment email Manu sent out, we should discover these phases in the use cases. We should see the subset in there... if we put this stuff together, we can prove what we need in the UPA by vetting it against the use cases.

<manu> dezell: If we can do that, we've done a complete job that we're getting what we want out of the use cases.

manu's 6 phases of payment:

Phase 1: Merchant Expresses an Offer of Sale

Phase 2: Payment Initiation / Identity Credential Transmission

Phase 3: Payment Instrument Negotiation

Phase 4: Submission of Payment to Payment Processor

Phase 5: Delivery of Proof of Payment to Merchant

Phase 6: Payment Clearing/Settlement

<manu> dezell: I'm not exactly sure that's exactly what we will end up with, but it's a good enough start.

<manu> manu: yes, that list was a shot in the dark.

AOB

N/A

s/N\/A/Meet next week same time/day/

<manu> dezell: We're going to have an iterative approach, we want some friction between the use cases, phases of payment, and UPA.

s/N\A//

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/scary to/concerning to/
Succeeded: s/up./up\?/
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/N\/A/Meet next week same time/day/
Succeeded: s/one of the retailers/some people/
Succeeded: s/not quite ready/ready/
FAILED: s/N\A//
Found Scribe: David Ezell
Found ScribeNick: dezell
Default Present: Davd_Ezell, manu, Katie_Haritos-Shea
Present: Davd_Ezell manu Katie_Haritos-Shea
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2014Dec/0000.html
Got date from IRC log name: 04 Dec 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/04-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: dezell manu

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.