Web Payments Use Cases Task Force -- 06 Aug 2015

<manu> scribenick: AdrianHB

Web Payments WG Charter to W3C Membership

<manu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2015JulSep/0031.html

Ian: WPWG charter has been put out for AC review
... I will be following up and ensuring AC are considering charter
... Nick TR has been named as one co-chair
... others TBD

manu: when does review end

ian: Sept 15

<Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2015Aug/0001.html

ian: you may wish to notify people of this but also suggest people subscribe to the new-work mailing list

manu: I have a list of W3C member companies I like to contact if there is stuff I think they need to see when should I contact them

ian: there are auto-reminders sent to AC reps a week before the review ends
...
... secondly our plan, with Doug, is to reach out to individual IG member's AC rep and also those that were at the March workshop but aren't in the IG
... we will also contact those that supported the IG charter

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that I get so many of those that I ignore all of them.

ian: feel free to reach out but the staff will also be doing some of this and there are auto-reminders

manu: auto-reminders are a bit overwhelming
... i find direct emails work better
... but sounds like the staff have this under control

<manu> Ian: In terms of the member review

<manu> Ian: For the member review part, if you have a personal relationship w/ people - and you think they've missed it - by all means, ping them.

ian: it will be most helpful for members to do outreach at the launch

<manu> Ian: If you know if they're aware of it, don't need to ping them. I think more importantly - we need to reach out to rest of industry after launch. We'll have conversations on that launch, testimonials, develop some stories, etc.

manu: got it, thanks

WPWG Charter blog post

manu: anythign further on this topic?

<manu> http://www.w3.org/blog/wpig/2015/08/05/web-payments-working-group-charter-in-review/

manu: Ian has put a blog post together. Do you want to discuss it at all Ian?

ian: It's already been posted, please have a look. Nothing that required IG input it's just facts and links to the IG's work so far (FAQ and charter)

manu: any q?

ian: please retweet my tweet about it

<Ian> https://twitter.com/w3c/status/628951869059108864

<Ian> https://twitter.com/w3c/status/628858287102930945

manu: anything else?

ian: nederlansde bank just joined the IG

manu: ian, do you get a feeling that the bank will be heavily involved?

ian: not sure, I was not involved in the recruitment

manu: would be valuable to understand how they got to joining. Would help with other recrutiment efforts

pat: Fed will be publishing articles in Fedfocus (large c-suite finserv readership)
...
... intro article in early septemeber about IG
... will try to leverage time at TF meeting or Chicago symposium to highlight the work
... another article asking people to join the WG in october
... followed up on note from Ian re getting more central banks
... possible opportunity at SIBOS where we will be talking to central banks
... agneda is liely fixed now but we could prepare something to share there for central banks specifically

ian: TPAC is coming up, we need to drum up momentum for that too
... we are now trying to decide how we get the next charter done and that means looking at proposals for the next 6 months

TPAC f2f

<manu> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015

ian: this feels like a discussion we shoudl have on Monday with the whole IG

manu: we can skip but if we want but we can use this time to prep

ian: june was great because we had a specific outcome in mind
... to that end let's set some goals
... I think the IG goal is to establish what the next charter will be
... don't think we will have a charter by the end of TPAC though
... need proposals as input to that process
... for the WG the gaol will be a knowlegde transfer, opportunity to meet other groups with which it has some liason reqs and start setting our work plan
... as an example we have in teh charter that we will build test suites so let's use that opportunityt o get Phillipe's time for an hour

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to raise concern about WPIG + WPWG to be "too much Web Payments" for TPAC.

ian: notes welcome form members

manu: have concern about the amount of participation
... might be an overdose of payments
... will we have IG and WG meetings at every TPAC for the next few years
... should we only have the WG meet after this year?
... we may be a burnt out by the end of the week

ian: if we have good agenda we will be "tired but energised" otherwise it won't feel worthwhile
... we need to go in with clear goals
... there is a lot we need to work thoguh on this occasion
... and the location is an opportunity to bring in new participants
... don't want to make a balnket statement let's deal with on a case by case
... we need to do stuff in prep to ensure we get to the f2f with work to do

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about demos and input to WG

ian: need to think about what's important and who will do the work (writing proposals)

manu: there is a body of work that exists outside the IG which we have been talking about abstractly to date. Would some demos help us solidify our ideas?
... i.e. We show the things we are talking about as a way to start conversations.
... do we do that in the IG and WG or one or the other?

ian: at the june meeting Evan's demo was a great conversation piece and we also say Apple's demo of Apple Pay which helped us feel out our thoughts
... so anything that helps do that is welcome
... just demos will be less important if it's not driving the agenda

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to think out loud about meeting ideas.

ian: so, if demos support the goals, sounds great

pat: wrt june meeting and last TPAC (my read on things), if we can somehow focus the portions of the agenda around specific examples
... use cases beyond the scope of the WG charter
... i saw a lot of indecision around use cases that were not imprtant to everyone
... perhaps industry focused agenda sessions would help
... eg: b2b vs c2b vs g2b etc

manu: industry focused in the same room or separate rooms
... ?

pat: perhaps we just need to identify which perspective we are taking at particular time, perhaps different tracks

padler: need to think about how to focus sections of the agenda for specific groups of memebers in the IG
... we need to deliniate between IG and WG (IG needs to have wide scope)
... IG needs to focus on the new WGs we will be forming etc

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to +1 industry specific discussions in same room.

manu: +1 to padler
... helpful to have industry specific sections of the agenda (eg: retail perspective for an hour talking about digital receipts)
... it frames the discussion and keeps the discussion focused
... another session on identity and banking
... in that session we'd specifically not talk about KYC for MNOs etc

padler: yes, thats what I'm looking for
... in june the conversation was a bit tangled because of the diversity of people in the conversations

ian: yes, scopes should not overlap (IG vs WG)
... as far as strcuturing the rest of the agenda, not sure sepeartion along stakeholder lines is right but open to proposals

<padler> maybe base it on "scenarios"

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that having the discussion in the same room is important.

ian: our job this month is to figure out the best way to do the IG f2f

<padler> -1 to break out groups in the way that we did them in June..

manu: we should stay in the same room

<padler> +1 to staying in same room..

manu: it results in some common understanding

+1 to staying together

padler: industry vertical is perhaps not the right way to do it, I like the idea of scenarios/settings eg: retail
... helps to identify out of context comments and defer those

manu: let's move on

WPIG -> WPWG Knowledge Transfer

manu: there is another set of docs we need to point the WG at which is those in the WPCG
... q1: are we planning on mentioning those?
... q2: how will we do that if we don't discuss them in the IG first?

ian: in the IG context, what is the right time to cover the work of the CG?
... has it worked on APIs that look like the APIs the WG is going to work on

manu: yes

ian: then we should have a session in the WG meeting to hand-over work that has been done previously (in the CG or other)

manu: is there work for the IG to do?

ian: no, that's now in the WG's scope

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask who will comiple that?

<manu> AdrianHB: There is a bunch of source material for that WG to consume which the IG hasn't looked at because it has been considered too technical. Isn't it the role of the IG to compile that list?

<manu> Ian: That may be an optimization because of timing...

<manu> Ian: The WG group should launch September 28th, and then develop that list in the WG - it may be impractical to have it formally defined that way.

ian: that may be an optimization but it's not a req of the IG. The group will launch pre-TPAC so theoretically it could be done by WG participants pre-TPAC

manu: I can take an action to compile this list and engage the CG

ian: fine but the framing is important. The charter has no "starting point" defined so this is input but not mandatory for the WG to consider
... it's probabaly useful to share the material in advance but I think the WG needs to establish itself
... so sharing this stuff should be done in a light touch way

<Ian> manu: I'm ok to meet briefly

manu: short admin call tomorrow on capabilities doc

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Use Cases Task Force

06 Aug 2015

Attendees

Contents

Web Payments WG Charter to W3C Membership

WPWG Charter blog post

TPAC f2f

WPIG -> WPWG Knowledge Transfer

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output