Web Payments IG Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday) -- 25 Jun 2015

<padler> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m3c770bd410343da70902252e564e3625

Use cases next steps

Aftermath of F2F / Next Steps

Ian: Writing a blog post, editing minutes, working w/ management team on strategic planning for payments for the next year.
... Adrian's been a bit under the weather - no revised charter yet, but expect to sync up w/ him tomorrow.
... That's the primary activity for the next week.
... Goal is that we get as much consensus from the IG as we can, so that by 22 July, we can have in W3M's hands.

<Ian> desired schedule:

<Ian> 22 July: W3M review starts

<Ian> 29 July: W3M approval

<Ian> 3 August launch AC review

<Ian> September: launch group

<Ian> October: FTF at TPAC

Ian: Working to try to find Chairs for new groups, etc.
... Hope to have that package ready later on
... Not driving the security authentication groups.

Credentials Next Steps

Manu: What are we doing for Credentials?

Ian: Strategize on how to build the community - no specific charter efforts at this time.
... That can be part of IG's main call - maybe bring some ideas into IG. There is a need to strategize on how to do that.

<Ian> Manu: I prefer that we talk about it in the IG calls

<Ian> ...the IG was not hooked into the work

<Ian> ..the credentials WG participants not happy with the outcome

<Ian> ...so they are wondering where the work should live.

<Ian> manu: They are motivated to work on this sooner rather than later

<Ian> ...if work goes elsewhere we will have a harder time getting critical mass within W3C

<Ian> ...so we need to move quickly

padler: Question about after roundtable - I was similarly concerned that credentials, just because of relative importance of it to payment process, it got pushed to the side. Because it got pushed to the side, it sent the wrong signal to those people that are actively interested.
... We heard from the large banks that credentials are their biggest pain point - "If we don't fix identity, we might as well go home."
... Maybe there is some effort that's needed to post something very visible on the blog that indicates that the work is still progressing, and that it's important, what's coming out w/ TecSec opensourcing their IP - feels like we have people interested in doing the work.
... Because it's not in the initial payments charter, that those people might go elsewhere.

Ian: I heard at the meeting, similarly, that there are people in the room that feel that identity problem and credentials approach is important. I heard Jeff Jaffe repeat that he feels like we need to have more people in the room.
... That's why, to date, I believe next step is to get more people in the room.
... So, we work to build the community.
... If the CG doesn't want to wait, they can continue w/o the WG status. That may be harder to do, but Manu you've already done work to bring people to the table. That is an option.
... To get payments people up to speed will require time. I do not think it's realistic that payments people will be up to speed.
... That seem unrealistic - options seem to be 1) don't try to get new payments folks up to speed, just go somewhere else or do w/in W3C without payments use cases, or 2) get payments people to contribute use cases and make it a joint effort.
... I don't want to stop anyone from doing what they want to do, but I thought the plan was to get everyone together and proceed.

dezell: Just to second what Ian said - Manu you're uniquely positioned to carry this message. To many people in the room, Credentials are important, it is important to W3M - both of the chairs feel that this is important. We should be careful to be careful w/ browser folks - they were important to get into this.
... I think we did the right thing to focus where we did, I think we had a good result. Both of chairs are committed to Credentials, very important problem, it's not an unclear or murky area - it's just a matter of bandwidth.

Ian: This is not a question of bandwidth, it's having the right people at the table to do the work.

dezell: It's important to have the right people at the table.
... Did you add the credential use case?

<Ian> Manu: The credentials CG has payment use cases in their documentation

<Ian> ...the IG has a set of use cases in a very specific credentials Use Case that highlights the need for credentials

<Ian> ...we did not get to a place to add additional credential use cases to the document

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about recruiting.

<Ian> manu: Ian, I would like to see the three industries get together at w3c to work on this.

<Ian> ...I think the way to approach this is to recruit people into the group asap

<Ian> ...we met on Tuesday and said we'd focus our effort on recruiting

<Ian> ...and bring people from education and recruiting into the Credentials CG

<Ian> ..we hope that will help

<Ian> ...what I'd like to see is for the IG to discuss credentials stuff

pader: A couple of quick questions - going back to the roundtable - there were payment people in the room - have any of those "credentials are important to us" people going to join the group?

padler: We talk about recruiting - where does the people were at the roundtable - at the group - what also might be missing - don't know this for sure. Asking more than suggesting - at roundtable, since it was payment focused - credentials folks couldn't attend. If we had the credentials folks at the roundtable, they would have put more focus on it.
... The part that I'm interested in - we took a lot of time laying out that there were these important tracks of work - spaces, things that had to be worked on. Decomposition of problem into core parts.
... That didn't go out in the minutes - we didn't talk about those things... that might be one other area where we can reinforce that? Maybe I can update the diagrams.
... We didn't go back to that at all - we focused on the charter - there are these other parts of work, we need recruiting around them - each box might not be fully staffed at this point - this is where we need help - we need someone on the credentials stuff.

<Ian> +1 to build strategy for accomplishing next work

padler: Get those perspectives onto the IG -

Ian: Good point - generally speaking, we need to go back to minutes - need to strategize about getting next things done... around credentials, that's one thing. There are other topics as well. The IG was in the mode of trying to get to their first charter. Now we can step back and focus on number of activities we need to do. We need to make progress on capabilities, get people to table on credentials.
... How to get alignment w/ international standards, get regulatory input, those are some of the questions. How do we communicate to the community?
... All of those things require us as a group to adjust where we are today. One thing to Manu - I'm hearing a response from the CG - a couple of things have happened, I think the IG has made a good faith effort to have conversation on credentials and have people from industry come and be a part of that meeting.
... I hope that indicates that that's part of the conversation. It is not unusual that the new people were not up to speed, had questions, and expressed strong views. We were able to get more consensus on the payments stuff than some of the other stuff.
... It's incumbent on everyone to increase understanding.
... The good news is that having Jeff in the room, he heard that people said that Credentials was important to them. We need more people in the room.
... There's a bit of a bandwidth issue right now, but I also recognize we committed to get a meeting together to strategize around credentials.
... The timing is bad, but let's try to meet on July 1st or 2nd - to figure out next steps. We should bring a plan to the IG. I'd like some backing from W3M about the plan to make sure they've bought into it.

Manu: Could we have a conversation w/ the IG on this?

Ian: Not yet - we need to propose a plan.
... Folks in Credentials CG that want this to move forward should help craft this proposal. Then W3M should buy into it.
... Let's try to get more buy-in.
... A select number of people will have to come up with a strategy - union of parties to figure out what to do next.

padler: The IG needs to enable multiple things to happen concurrently. I think we're seeing pressure because we focused on 1 of the 5 buckets we're working on.
... I think we need to figure out how to run multiple threads in parallel - we need to clearly define work. The face-to-face, one of the reasons we churned alot, we had a lot of groups trying to opine on every space. Had we had more focused topic areas, it would've been a lot more easier.
... The work is going a bit slower now because everyone is scared at seeing the whole ocean, we need to get them to focus on the boat that they can build best.
... What's that strategy that allows those things to co-evolve together. We had to get payments started... but now we need to decompose the work and do the specialist stuff in those other areas.

Ian: No one said we had to be done before we start the next work.

padler: yes, but that's the perception. We have a dual mandate, get charters defined for work that has to occur as a part of the payments group. One vertical is further along than other verticals.

<Ian> IJ: Yes to pat - to support a second stream we need more participants

padler: I'm hearing that we have a group of willing participants on Credentials, and it's complimentary, as an IG can we pull those things together and let them work on the charter for those things?
... To bring these things together, we need multiple streams of work. We need to come back to, very quickly, a clear picture of how we're decomposing the work - we need to show them which resources are needed to move stuff forward.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to move ton to next agenda topics.

<padler> not just about credentials..

<padler> it's the same with Commerce

<padler> :)

<Ian> +1 to communicating clearly that the IG is starting to work on v2 stuff

<padler> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups

Ian: One thing I'll do right now is add, to the end of the summary, "the IG is helping to prepare for the launch of a new WG but there is much more to do to flesh out use cases, requirements, and capabilities to build a full picture of an ecommerce architecture"

padler: As a result of the discussion - I updated the capability groups and definitions. If we could adapt this picture - clearing and settlement - here's what's moving along there.
... On identity/credentials one - we say what are next steps?
... On commerce - what are next steps... then we have groups like the Credentials CG, and GS1 understand where they could contribute.

<Ian> +1

Ian: Yes, that's part of the strategy of moving forward - how is IG going to continue to be engaged. What are the leadership roles we need. Continue to find new people to work on those topics.
... The fact that we had to pause on a particular thing to get it done, does not mean that all work has stopped on other things.

padler: If we said that the purpose of the face-to-face is to achieve thse two steps for clearing and settlement, and this one step for identity, etc. You have different people participating in those things.
... We had merchants worried about the commerce space, which was important, but diluted the conversation wrt. clearing and settlement.
... We needed to have more narrow conversations and ended up having more broad conversations.
... Had we had this picture before the IG - more broadly available - maybe it would've been easier to segment the conversations.
... Basically, people felt out when they didn't need to be "left out".
... The enhancement I need to make to capabilities - I understand that way charters are being scoped, that payments architecture WG, is the middle two boxes (Accounts and Ownership / Clearing and Settlement)
... We could put boxes around this image: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/File:PaymentsEcosystemV2.png <-- which WGs are handling each box.
... That's a very visible thing - what are mobile vendors involved in, what are browser vendors involved in.

Manu: I think the picture is close

padler: Picture is only good for forming a loose mental model - I'm imagining you put a layer over this - overlay that shows version 1 will work in this space.
... Identity/credentials are working on this sets of problems... IGs goal is to see how all of these things happen in parallel.
... We're spending a lot of time in the middle two boxes.
... We're talking about MVP - you can look at one function, or a slice of all the functions. We don't just need Clearing and Settlement, we need the other things as well.

Manu: Yes, overlay makes sense.

padler: Where does IG go over time? How does work in each group tie back to the greater whole?
... You're going to have different amounts of contributions based on need. Identity and Credentials might go very fast, Clearing and Settlement may go very slow.
... Maybe TPAC should be structured - day 1 is ONLY clearing settlement, day 2 is ONLY identity and credentials.
... People don't have to sit through clearing and settlement because they're not involved in it.
... Don't know if best shot is to tweak this diagram - process/roadmap centric.

- DRAFT -

Web Payments IG Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday)
25 Jun 2015

Attendees

Contents

Use cases next steps

Aftermath of F2F / Next Steps

Credentials Next Steps

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

- DRAFT -

Web Payments IG Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday) 25 Jun 2015

Attendees

Contents

Use cases next steps

Aftermath of F2F / Next Steps

Credentials Next Steps

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

Web Payments IG Payment Architecture Task Force (Thursday)
25 Jun 2015