<burdges> Yes, I'm Jeff Burdges <jeffrey.burdges@inria>

<scribe> Meeting: Web Payments IG (not official telecon)

<dezell> Meeting: Web Payments IG non-telcon

Introduction to Jeff Burdges

<scribe> scribe: manu

Jeff: Hi Jef Burdges, working with a startup payment processor, RSA blind signatures. It's a standard Chaumian based blind signing - crypto folks like. My background, mathematician but doing software. Startup incubator type thing.

Manu: What are you hoping to get out of the group?

Jeff: Debian developer said we should get involved with this work. His opinion, he didn't want the work we're doing to be kept out of web standards. I was the person volunteered to get involved from our group. In practice, not too different from concerns of folks from Ripple, etc.
... interested in making sure standard is amenable to Chaumian blind signatures.
... For blind signatures, it's the coin that you're paying with - low risk.

Manu: Hey, Manu - very involved in payments and credentials at W3C.

ShaneM: I've been involved w/ W3C on a variety of standards - following Web Payments for a few years as well as Credentials. I'm here to get Credential stuff rolling.

DavidE: I'm co-chair of Web Payments WG - I keep the wheels on the wagon.

Status of Credentials Task Force

Manu: So, here's the current status
... We decided to do something around Credentials at W3C at WPIG face-to-face meeting in Sapporo.
... @@@

<inserted> We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there.

DavidE: I think there is concern that we're being too secretive, but W3C staff is trying to make sure this is done correctly.
... This has been a little difficult, I think we're ok delaying a week - we've got input from Jeff Jaffe that he believes we should move forward on this.

Manu: We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there.

<inserted> So, the problem is 1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w\/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG.

DavidE: I think next week might go a few ways - since we don't know all of the players, this is a hypothesising exercise. You have to make a best guess about where the issue is.
... I have though for a while that if you were to take the architecture for a general purpose credential, which is what the CG wants, and you were to figure out the components of that thing to move payments forward, and build a charter around that, it would not preclude the expansion of that energy to other work items.
... People could figure out if they want to move forward based on a limited charter.

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask why the staff has any say in this at all?

ShaneM: If the IG has agreed to have the discussion, then have the discussion, W3C staff doesn't get a vote - they're a facilitator. If other people want to have a voice, they should come in. I don't understand how this kind of struggle resolved in any way other than in favor of the members.

DavidE: If this were just a struggle between us and our staff contact (which it clearly is not from what I can see), it would be relatively simple, but there are others that are commenting on what's going on.
... I think the IG can make progress next week.
... This kind of exchange is unusual, but not unprecedented.

<collier-matthew> manu: I want to make sure we have a firm resolution next monday on which way to proceed. We have 3 options in front of us

<collier-matthew> 1. do the work in the credential CG

<collier-matthew> 2. create a new community group, but the CG doesn't like that option.

<collier-matthew> 3. Webpayments IG creates a task force

<collier-matthew> There should be a proposal to an agreement on one of these options.

<collier-matthew> manu: I don't think that W3C staff has the bandwidth to analyse this. My fear is that they are not prepared to make a decision on Monday.

DavidE: You need a lot of bandwidth to deal with this issue, it's on agenda for monday. It might behoove us to have a goal of where to have discussion.
... Delaying minutes may not be an issue
... I want to make sure our discussion on Monday is straightforward - people that dial in to discussion. We need to make special dispensation - email discussion / public minutes - discussion - teleconference.

Manu: I think we need to make these calls open.

DavidE: This is the type of issue I'm concerned about - there is an economic issue - members participate, etc. I don't think we can completely get away from that.
... I think we can bring it up. Maybe phase I and Phase II approach might work.

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce

<collier-matthew> manu: There is no reason to exclude anyone from a discussion about how we're going to do the work.

<collier-matthew> It was proposed we do this in a CG.

<collier-matthew> Anyone can join a CG

<collier-matthew> ... These are just open meetings. We will take minutes and recording minutes.

<collier-matthew> ... making it a member only discussion has been rejectd.

<collier-matthew> ... Input to date has been to create an open forum.

<collier-matthew> ... Setting up a new community group takes some effort.

DavidE: So two options - Have iG run the work, create a new CG
... Have a call on Tuesday a 11am - anyone from anywhere can join that call.

<collier-matthew> manu: Yes, no need to create a CG or anything, just set a a time to meet.

Manu: Yes, let's just set a time and meet - no IPR necessary.

DavidE: I don't see a way to change IPR rules - third rail. I need to go back and read IG IPR again
... If we find something that creates friction w/ IPR - then we have an issue.
... We don't want to get all the lawyers involved around IPR issues.

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask if the wicg could be a backup location to have the discussion

ShaneM: I understand and agree - if there are IPR issues to waive - if we can't do this in Credentials CG - what about WICG.

<collier-matthew> manu: the WICG is browser tech.

<collier-matthew> ... this is not a browser tech discussion.

<collier-matthew> ... the other issue is the overhead involved in joining the group etc.

<collier-matthew> ... the IPR thing is a farce which does not come into play.

<collier-matthew> ... This group we're talking about is not going to generate any documents that require sign-off.

<collier-matthew> It might create use cases.

<collier-matthew> ... We can have people join the Credentials CG as required to address IPR concerns.

<collier-matthew> ... The objection to reusing the credential CG is that it's not a neutral space.

<collier-matthew> ... Anyone who asserts that it is not a neutral space should express their concerns.

DavidE: What would be the ideal way we go about this?

<collier-matthew> manu: I think the ideal is to resuse the credential CG.

<collier-matthew> ... we need to convince people who feel the group is non-neutral is willing to setup meetings focused on listening to those who feel the group is not a neutral space.

<collier-matthew> ... Use the credential CG and an IPR agreement.

DavidE: What about logistics of writing the charter?

Manu: The IG can do that work.

DavidE: Trying to figure out how this applies to Interledger - continue to have discussion out there - Task Force in IG that puts together charter.

<collier-matthew> manu: I think they are in the same position that the credentials work is in, but they are atleast 1 year away from creating a charter.

<collier-matthew> ... the flow from community group to a working group is not well mapped.

<collier-matthew> ... the CG's start out as being neutral, they come to consensus about what should happen, then they are disregarded and a new group is formed.

<collier-matthew> It sets the community groups up for failure.

DavidE: I think this is an AC problem. I think you are chairing two large CGs that have come up with something and you're frustrated by the transition process.
... I want to make sure we come away with a way forward on Monday. We have two choices - we leave the CG in charge, but formulate a task force in IG to begin work on charter, which will take input from CG.
... Other possibilities, we create a new Task force and have calls where we can invite other people in. I think both are reasonable. We don't need to kill ourselves over the discussion.
... Let me try to socialize this.

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to mention that I assume there is no way to have a joint task force between a CG and an IG

s/@@@@/1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG.

s/@We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there./1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w\/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG./

s/@We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there.//1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w\/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG./

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/staff contact/staff contact (which it clearly is not from what I can see)/
Succeeded: s/we lead the CG/we leave the CG/
Succeeded: s/CG and charge/CG in charge/
Succeeded: s/Web Payments IG Meeting/Web Payments IG Meeting (unofficial teleconference)/
Succeeded: s/hello//
Succeeded: s/Hello//
Succeeded: s/inria.fr/inria/
Succeeded: s/only just getting up to speed with the group//
Succeeded: s/@@@/We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there./
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/@@@@/1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG.
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/@@@@/1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w\/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG./
Succeeded: s/@@@/We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there./
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/@We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there.//1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w\/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG./
Succeeded: i/I think there is concern/We have three proposals on the table 1) Create a new CG to have the discussion, 2) Create a task force in the IG to have the discussion, 3) Re-use the Credentials CG and have the discussion there.
Succeeded: i/I think next week might/So, the problem is 1) There is strong push back against creating a new CG that effectively does the same thing as the Credentials CG, 2) IPR issues w\/ the IG, and 3) The 'non-neutral' assertion around the Credentials CG.
Succeeded: s/So, the problem is @We/We/
Found Scribe: manu
Inferring ScribeNick: manu
Default Present: ShaneM, burdges, Manu, MattC
Present: ShaneM burdges Manu MattC davidEzell
Got date from IRC log name: 16 Nov 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/16-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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