16:55:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpay
16:55:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-irc
16:56:00 <dezell> rrsagent, make minutes member
16:56:00 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes member', dezell.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:56:10 <dezell> rrsagent, make logs member.
16:56:22 <dezell> rrsagent, make logs member
16:58:23 <manu> zakim, room for 10 for 90 minutes?
16:58:24 <Zakim> ok, manu; conference Team_(wpay)16:58Z scheduled with code 9729 (WPAY) for 90 minutes until 1828Z
17:00:01 <Zakim> Team_(wpay)16:58Z has now started
17:00:09 <Zakim> +Davd_Ezell
17:00:16 <dezell> zakim, Davd is me
17:00:16 <Zakim> +dezell; got it
17:00:25 <Zakim> + +1.540.961.aaaa
17:00:49 <manu> zakim, aaaa is manu
17:00:49 <Zakim> +manu; got it
17:00:55 <Zakim> +??P2
17:01:02 <Laurent> Laurent has joined #wpay
17:01:35 <dezell> Meeting: Web Payments Use Cases TF
17:02:09 <Zakim> + +33.1.55.01.aabb
17:02:19 <dlongley> Zakim: ??P2 is me
17:02:28 <dlongley> zakim, P2 is me
17:02:28 <Zakim> sorry, dlongley, I do not recognize a party named 'P2'
17:02:34 <jean-yves> jean-yves has joined #wpay
17:02:35 <Zakim> -manu
17:02:36 <Zakim> + +1.312.504.aacc
17:02:36 <dezell> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Feb/0031.html
17:02:38 <Zakim> +??P10
17:02:47 <Zakim> -??P10
17:03:05 <Ian> zakim, call Ian-Office
17:03:05 <Zakim> ok, Ian; the call is being made
17:03:06 <Zakim> +Ian
17:03:12 <Laurent> zakim, +33.1.55.01.aabb is me
17:03:12 <Zakim> +Laurent; got it
17:03:30 <padler> padler has joined #wpay
17:03:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:03:36 <manu> zakim, I am [IPcaller]
17:03:36 <Zakim> ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
17:03:46 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
17:03:54 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wpay
17:04:03 <Zakim> + +33.6.51.24.aadd
17:04:09 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see dezell, ??P2, Laurent, +1.312.504.aacc, Ian, [IPcaller], Katie_Haritos-Shea, +33.6.51.24.aadd
17:04:32 <jean-yves> Zakim, aadd is jean-yves
17:04:32 <Zakim> +jean-yves; got it
17:04:39 <manu> zakim, aadd is Laurent
17:04:41 <Zakim> sorry, manu, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
17:04:46 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see dezell, ??P2, Laurent, +1.312.504.aacc, Ian, [IPcaller], Katie_Haritos-Shea, jean-yves
17:04:53 <manu> zakim, I am [IPc
17:04:53 <Zakim> ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
17:04:55 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
17:04:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see dezell, ??P2, Laurent, +1.312.504.aacc, Ian, [IPcaller], Katie_Haritos-Shea, jean-yves
17:05:05 <manu> zakim, ??P3 is dlongley
17:05:05 <Zakim> I already had ??P3 as Katie_Haritos-Shea, manu
17:05:05 <manu> zakim, ??P2 is dlongley
17:05:06 <Zakim> +dlongley; got it
17:05:31 <manu> zakim, aacc is Pat
17:05:31 <Zakim> +Pat; got it
17:05:34 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
17:05:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see dezell, dlongley, Laurent, Pat, Ian, [IPcaller], Katie_Haritos-Shea, jean-yves
17:05:53 <dezell> zakim [IP is manu
17:06:14 <dezell> zakim, [IP is manu
17:06:14 <Zakim> +manu; got it
17:06:33 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
17:06:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see dezell, dlongley, Laurent, Pat, Ian, manu, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jean-yves
17:06:34 <dezell> zakim, who is on the call?
17:06:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see dezell, dlongley, Laurent, Pat, Ian, manu, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jean-yves
17:07:22 <manu> scribenick: Ryladog
17:07:26 <dezell> scribenick: Ryladog
17:07:33 <manu> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Feb/0031.html
17:08:25 <padler> q+
17:08:25 <Ryladog> Scribe: Katie Haritos-Shea
17:08:28 <manu> Topic: Agenda Bashing
17:08:33 <Ryladog> ScribeNick: Ryladog
17:09:02 <dezell> q?
17:09:08 <Ryladog> Manu: we do have e terminology section - we will add that
17:09:12 <dezell> ack pad
17:09:29 <Ryladog> Pat: I noticed I would like to clarify Push vs Pull or Pyer vs payee
17:09:51 <Ryladog> PAT:We need to clarify this in the use cases
17:10:01 <Ryladog> Manu: Will cover later OK?
17:10:04 <Ryladog> Pat: yes
17:10:18 <manu> Topic: Updated Use Case Template
17:11:03 <Ian> diagrams++
17:11:09 <Ryladog> Manu: we decided to add and remove some things from the UC, we decided to do diagrams and turn out to be really important
17:11:21 <manu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Feb/0030.html
17:11:46 <manu> Look at this one specifically for an example of the new template: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#initiating-a-payment
17:11:54 <Ryladog> ?me says sorry had a work problem..
17:12:34 <Ryladog> Manu: You will see the new description and the flow and the objects as I an reaised in the F2F. then example to add meat o the bones
17:13:03 <Ryladog> Manu: The next section are the motivations for the CS why they are important and why we decided to incluse them
17:13:24 <Ryladog> .....and at the bottom there are US preconditions and post conditions
17:13:39 <Ryladog> ...pre is wht should eb true for the UC to work
17:13:53 <Ian> q+
17:13:53 <dezell> q+
17:13:54 <Ryladog> ...the post is what should be true after the use case is implementsed
17:13:58 <manu> ack Ian
17:14:00 <Laurent> q+
17:14:01 <Ryladog> ....so what aree we nising?
17:14:31 <Ryladog> Ian: F2F talked about US should be - what the examples are . So each example is a UC
17:15:10 <Ryladog> ...I agree that factoring out pre and post. So have you thought about moving th examples to USs?
17:15:15 <manu> q+ to say that moving examples out to be their own use cases would lead to an explosion of use cases.
17:15:34 <dlongley> q+
17:15:40 <manu> ack dezell
17:15:40 <Ryladog> ...why are there 4 examples - if they are diffetent then they should be there own US
17:15:50 <padler> q+
17:16:27 <Ryladog> David E: +1 to Ians questions. The basic flow looks great. It is nore than I was thinking. Maybe it needs to be simple steps.
17:16:38 <Ryladog> ...the flow we need to have that spelled out just in text
17:17:06 <Zakim> + +33.6.22.04.aaee
17:17:20 <Ryladog> ....the way these are laid out....which is multiple ways of looking at the same thing. But there is the more common way without a POV.
17:17:21 <CyrilV> CyrilV has joined #wpay
17:17:31 <manu> zakim, aaee is CyrilV
17:17:31 <Zakim> +CyrilV; got it
17:17:39 <manu> ack Laurent
17:17:44 <Ryladog> ...I am unsure if we shoul keep POV...that is the part that nakes it hard to map to sprocofc UC
17:17:50 <dezell> q?
17:18:20 <jean-yves> q+
17:18:37 <Ryladog> Laurent: I cannot agree that for the examples that they should not have POV.
17:18:44 <manu> ack manu
17:18:44 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that moving examples out to be their own use cases would lead to an explosion of use cases.
17:19:45 <Ryladog> Manu: Background on the examples: started out in the CG, we kept going more and more generic with the text. But then the description wee tto generic and it was hard to map to a use case
17:20:14 <Ryladog> ...what we really need is a view of the UC from a variety of visual.
17:20:21 <Ian> q+
17:20:28 <Ryladog> ...-1 to spliting the example out into their own UC
17:20:42 <Ryladog> ....they are all supposed to be about a particluar use case
17:20:53 <dezell> q+ to talk (again) about "examples"
17:21:19 <Ryladog> Ian: 3.1.2 is different perspective on the same US. That sound s different to me. So maybe we could identify that
17:21:21 <Ian> q-
17:21:46 <Ryladog> Manu: the reason that we have that their is that folks want tto have something that each stakeholder could hold on to
17:22:03 <Ian> [Maybe we can recast 3.1.2 as "Different perspectives on the use case" rather than "Different examples"]
17:22:09 <Ryladog> ...before it was all customer centrix. Can we reword?
17:22:29 <Ryladog> Manu: I dont have stronge feeling about that.....other did...
17:22:34 <manu> ack dlongley
17:23:08 <Ian> +1 to single use case and multiple points of view
17:23:38 <Ryladog> DaveL: I was going to say what Ian said. another approach is to have generic text for each use case then giveexample of wht they were trying to say
17:23:51 <manu> ack padler
17:24:34 <Ryladog> Pat: I think the image is helpful but I think it specialized too early. I would like to update to payer sellects something on payee
17:24:50 <manu> q+ to say that we tried same use case across all examples - and people complained about it being too focused.
17:25:01 <Ryladog> ...vey generic concepts are easier to understand aand allow the terms to stay consistant.
17:25:20 <Ryladog> ....a person sometimes is not neecssarily a customer
17:25:48 <Ryladog> Manu: In one we tired to use just payer and payee...so we can rework the diagrams to just have payer and payee
17:26:00 <Ryladog> Pat: Simple online payment example
17:26:06 <Ian> q+ re: diagram
17:26:19 <CyrilV> * what document the conversation is about ?
17:26:21 <Ryladog> Pat: If we are doing that conisistantly it will be more clear to folks
17:26:30 <manu> ack jean-yves
17:26:46 <padler> q+
17:27:33 <Ryladog> Cyril: I think that helpful to have some definitions or visions of not only the POV but also the roles are very different from merchant to others
17:28:16 <CyrilV> * not Cyril but Jean-Yves is talking
17:28:45 <Ryladog> ... if we solit it into different sections on what we all agree - otherwise (sorry Cyril idid not capture you comments well, please add them)
17:29:30 <Ryladog> ....pre and post conditions should be part of the requirments maybe. I want to understand what kind of conditions we have to use b/c that is noy clear to me so far
17:29:48 <Ryladog> Manu: We have good input.
17:29:50 <Ryladog> zakim, next item
17:29:51 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
17:30:32 <Ryladog> Manu: clealy we have a problem with the exmple section
17:30:35 <dezell> zakim, close the queue
17:30:35 <Zakim> ok, dezell, the speaker queue is closed
17:30:43 <manu> ack dezell
17:30:43 <Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk (again) about "examples"
17:32:05 <Ryladog> DavidE: We need to move quickly there may be other UC. I think I can supply a poinyter to traditional UC methodology/terminology. If you couple
17:32:19 <manu> q?
17:32:21 <manu> ack manu
17:32:21 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that we tried same use case across all examples - and people complained about it being too focused.
17:32:33 <Ryladog> ....them hthen you have a basic flow. It is common for the stories to not fit so that means that they need to be moved to a new UC
17:32:59 <padler> q-
17:33:33 <Ryladog> Manu: what David says is true it is like atunnel
17:33:49 <manu> ack Ian
17:33:49 <Zakim> Ian, you wanted to discuss diagram
17:34:03 <Ian> http://www.philadelphiafed.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2013/D-2013-October-Clearing-Settlement.pdf
17:34:35 <dlongley> One approach would be to just drop spelling out the POV and keep the example text. That would give different perspectives (without explicitly saying so) within a set of examples.
17:34:43 <Ryladog> Ian: Diagram. I read an artcile from th Payment card center on the last page they have some diagrams that are useful. We might not want all of the info.
17:35:12 <padler> +1 to type mismatch..
17:35:56 <Ryladog> ...people talk to merchandt. The website happens to be the way the merchant happen to communicate with the bnank. The diagram should not respresent the website and rather the parties involved
17:37:06 <manu> ACTION: Ian to review Initiating a Payment use case and propose changes.
17:37:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Review initiating a payment use case and propose changes. [on Ian Jacobs - due 2015-02-26].
17:37:33 <padler> if the goal is to create standard web payments, keeping it generic would help to allow for many different types of clients on either end of the transaction (ex. POS terminal, refrigerator, watch, etc)..
17:38:26 <padler> * Ryladog you're welcome..
17:39:07 <Ryladog> TOPIC: Breif discussion on Terminology
17:39:22 <manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#terminology
17:39:44 <Ryladog> JY: We need to be consistant in out terminology and I dont think we are.
17:40:19 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Glossary#Roles
17:40:42 <manu> q+ to say that Terminology in use cases is being used actively - can we focus there?
17:40:48 <manu> zakim, open the queue
17:40:48 <Zakim> ok, manu, the speaker queue is open
17:40:50 <manu> q+ to say that Terminology in use cases is being used actively - can we focus there?
17:40:52 <Ryladog> ....I think we should stick to known elements and inputs - maybe when we will try to get the new components in the glossary with descriptions
17:40:55 <dezell> q+
17:40:59 <manu> ack manu
17:40:59 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that Terminology in use cases is being used actively - can we focus there?
17:41:32 <manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#terminology
17:41:53 <Ian> (All problems can be solved by an indirection. :)
17:42:15 <Ryladog> Manu: I completely agree with JY. The terminoly in the UC spec I am trying to make it line up with the gloassry. Please send very cpcific changes to the list
17:42:17 <Ian> q+
17:42:27 <manu> ack dezell
17:43:01 <Ryladog> DavidE: I also agree with JY, that is non-contiversial. But it is hard for us to ensure that. What is the best way to help?
17:43:22 <manu> q+ to close discussion on glossary and move on.
17:43:28 <manu> ack Ian
17:44:20 <Ryladog> Ian: The expectation that there will be a glossary and that this document will rely on that. The glossary is not being upadted on a regular basis. What are the obsticles.
17:44:24 <manu> Here's the current glossary: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Glossary#Roles
17:44:42 <Ryladog> ... you could move the terminology section out of the document into the Wiki
17:44:55 <Ryladog> ...there would be one place instead of 2
17:44:57 <dezell> +1 to using the glossary for the definitions.
17:44:57 <manu> q?
17:45:06 <Ryladog> ...I am unsure if there is agreement
17:45:08 <manu> ack manu
17:45:08 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to close discussion on glossary and move on.
17:45:39 <Ian> (Ok to know that respec mechanics are part of this story)
17:45:39 <manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#terminology
17:45:42 <Ryladog> Manu: Absolutely agree, becasue of the ReSpec tool it required you to define terms
17:46:11 <Ryladog> ...-1 to moving it out to the Wiki, becasue we will no longer be able to do that in the FPWD
17:46:31 <Ryladog> ....we should hav only 1 glossary thing that we end up editing
17:46:50 <manu> q?
17:46:54 <Ryladog> Manu: stop the glossary in the Wiki nd figure out a way to import it into the FPWD doc
17:47:18 <Ryladog> Manu: respec does not support @import
17:47:57 <Ryladog> Ian: we probably dont want this to be a dynamic thing - we need a static include for stability. Maybe emporarrily dunamic
17:48:14 <manu> ACTION: Manu to figure out how to have one glossary document that can be #included into each spec.
17:48:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Figure out how to have one glossary document that can be #included into each spec. [on Manu Sporny - due 2015-02-26].
17:48:15 <Ian> (I suggest also talking with Evert about moving from Wiki to github)
17:48:33 <Ryladog> Manu: we need to talk to evereett about this
17:48:46 <manu> Topic: Push vs. Pull Payment Flows
17:48:54 <manu> http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/issues/1
17:48:56 <Ryladog> TOPIC: Push vs Pull Payment Flows
17:49:46 <Ryladog> Pat: Just want to point out that payments people the payer is actually pushing the payment out of therie account into ssoemone else account
17:50:14 <Ryladog> ......pull based is when someone pulls the money out. WE can very clearly delineate those two things
17:50:27 <manu> q+ to raise the point of confusion around push vs. pull.
17:50:30 <dezell> q+
17:50:31 <Ryladog> ....the actual mechanics behind the scenes......
17:50:35 <Ian> q+ to ask a clarifying question
17:50:36 <Laurent> q+
17:50:38 <manu> ack manu
17:50:38 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to raise the point of confusion around push vs. pull.
17:51:15 <Ryladog> Manu: The reason it was chnaged in the spec - there seemed to be confusion in the industry about this
17:51:46 <Ryladog> ...we had discussion that seemed it as not clear. The original intent was what you just said
17:51:47 <manu> ack dezell
17:52:12 <dlongley> q+
17:52:14 <Ryladog> DavidE: The push and pull acutally referes to the issuer and the acquirer
17:53:29 <Ryladog> ....the part of the language that - the reason that push payment is different is that this is a role reversal. I think Manu is saying that the user counts
17:54:03 <Ryladog> Pat: the title of it suggestes that as a user that I could acy=taully iitiate a pull payment form my account
17:54:13 <Ryladog> ...that is a payer initaited pull payment
17:54:24 <manu> http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/issues/1
17:54:43 <manu> ack Ian
17:54:43 <Zakim> Ian, you wanted to ask a clarifying question
17:54:50 <Ryladog> ..payer initiated pull/push and payee has initiated pull/push
17:55:22 <padler> q+
17:55:40 <manu> Ian, look at this wrt. Push-based payment:  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#payer-initiated-funds-transfer
17:55:45 <Ryladog> Ian: I hear that 3.1 as stated may not be presice, maybe we need multiple. That could be a whole useful thing inside this use case it really is the same it is just where the paymnt is initaited
17:56:12 <manu> ack Laurent
17:56:19 <Ryladog> Manu: Please look at whAT i JUST PUT IN, it is a specuficf different ise case
17:56:27 <Ian> will do
17:57:06 <Ryladog> Laurent: (sorry please type in your comment)
17:57:08 <padler> +1 to what Laurent is describing..
17:57:54 <manu> ack dlongley
17:57:58 <Ryladog> Manu: there was supposed to be no difference, but as Pat has outlined there is clealy a different
17:58:38 <Ryladog> DavidL: It is unclear what is being initiated. It is all about who is authorized to access your funds
17:58:54 <Ryladog> ....with pull you gviethen access to pull when they want to
17:59:10 <manu> ack padler
17:59:18 <Ryladog> ...use aterm authorization\Manu: maybe yu could send something to the mailing list
17:59:32 <CyrilV> -1 for authorization : it is already use for another process in card payment
17:59:47 <Ryladog> Pat: the differecne is really around who starts the process, who initaiates the collection of thinsg that start the payment
18:00:08 <dezell> rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html dezell
18:00:22 <Ryladog> ...the other is saying here is th list that they will accept in both cases the push id she=where the authoization actaully astrat te transaction
18:00:35 <Laurent> Laurent (capturing his own comments): In the F2F, we used push / pull to refer to processor location. Push was on the customer side, Pull on the merchant side. But Pat's point is that push / pull is referring to who initiaites funds transfer between accounts, so we should find other terms for processor location.
18:00:39 <dezell> rrsagent, make logs member
18:00:49 <Ryladog> ....payer initailed pull payment
18:00:56 <dezell> zakim, who is on the call?
18:00:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see dezell, dlongley, Laurent, Pat, Ian, manu, Katie_Haritos-Shea, jean-yves, CyrilV
18:01:06 <dlongley> q+
18:01:13 <manu> ack dlongley
18:01:16 <Ryladog> Manu: Cyril says he is -1 on any use of the word authorization
18:01:29 <Ryladog> DavidL: Maybe we can use the word deligation
18:01:33 <Ryladog> Cyril: No
18:02:09 <Ryladog> Manu: Do we want to add a UC that has to do with this vague Pull Based Payment?
18:02:25 <dezell> Present: Manu, David Ezell, Ian, Jean-Yves, David Longley, Pat Adler, Katie, Laurent, Cyril
18:02:26 <CyrilV> q+
18:02:36 <dezell> rrsagent, make minutes
18:02:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html dezell
18:02:37 <padler> in general pull based payments have a lot of risks... so it may be a lower priority..
18:02:46 <manu> ACTION: Laurent to write a pull-payment use case.
18:02:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Write a pull-payment use case. [on Laurent Castillo - due 2015-02-26].
18:02:50 <manu> ack CyrilV
18:02:52 <Ryladog> Manu: What exactly is the terminology that we are going to use to write tha tUC
18:03:34 <padler> +1 to the term validation...
18:03:35 <dezell> Chair: Manu Sporny
18:04:15 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
18:04:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html Ian
18:04:22 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs member
18:04:25 <Ryladog> Cyril: We could describe the .....payment subscription.....(scribe is having trouble hearing comment).....
18:04:25 <Ryladog> rrsagent, make minutes
18:04:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html Ryladog
18:04:35 <Ian> rrsagent, participants?
18:04:35 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-actions.rdf :
18:04:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ian to review Initiating a Payment use case and propose changes. [1]
18:04:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-irc#T17-37-06
18:04:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu to figure out how to have one glossary document that can be #included into each spec. [2]
18:04:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-irc#T17-48-14
18:04:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Laurent to write a pull-payment use case. [3]
18:04:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-irc#T18-02-46
18:05:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpay
18:05:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-irc
18:05:44 <Ryladog> Manu: we are out of time, thanks everyone, a great discussion - the call we be at the same time next week
18:05:45 <Zakim> -dlongley
18:05:48 <Zakim> -Pat
18:05:50 <Zakim> -manu
18:05:51 <Zakim> -jean-yves
18:05:52 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
18:06:01 <dlongley> dlongley has left #wpay
18:06:05 <Zakim> -dezell
18:06:07 <Zakim> -Laurent
18:06:20 <Ryladog> Manu
18:06:37 <Ryladog> I cannot see the minutes
18:06:40 <manu> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:06:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:06:42 <Ryladog> I do not have acess
18:06:52 <manu> rrsagent, make logs public
18:06:58 <manu> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:06:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:07:04 <Ryladog> can you clsoe out these minutes>
18:07:12 <manu> yep, I can, thx for scribing :)
18:07:35 <manu> s/Zakim: ??P2 is me//
18:07:36 <Ryladog> That does work though thanks Manu
18:07:43 <manu> s/zakim [IP is manu//
18:07:51 <manu> s/scribenick: Ryladog//
18:07:56 <Ryladog> too many spelling error
18:07:56 <Zakim> -CyrilV
18:07:58 <Ryladog> sorry
18:08:06 <manu> s/scribenick: Ryladog//
18:08:33 <manu> s/?me says sorry had a work problem..//
18:08:42 <manu> Ryladog - spelling errors are easy to correct :)
18:09:26 <manu> s/Cyril: I think that/Jean-Yves: I think that/
18:09:31 <manu> s/* what document the conversation is about ?//
18:09:37 <manu> s/* not Cyril but Jean-Yves is talking//
18:09:56 <manu> s/* Ryladog you're welcome..//
18:10:32 <manu> s/evereett/Evert/
18:11:06 <manu> s/whAT i JUST PUT IN/what i put into IRC/
18:11:21 <manu> s/Laurent: (sorry please type in your comment)//
18:12:25 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:12:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:12:45 <manu> Meeting: Web Payments IG: Use Cases Task Force
18:14:26 <manu> s/I cannot see the minutes//
18:14:31 <manu> s/I do not have acess//
18:14:37 <manu> s/can you clsoe out these minutes>//
18:14:44 <manu> s/yep, I can, thx for scribing :)//
18:14:50 <manu> s/That does work though thanks Manu//
18:14:55 <manu> s/too many spelling error//
18:15:09 <manu> s/sorry//
18:15:09 <manu> s/Ryladog - spelling errors are easy to correct :)//
18:15:11 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:15:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:21:16 <manu> s/Meeting: Web Payments IG: Use Cases Task Force//
18:21:27 <manu> Meeting: Web Payments IG - Use Cases Task Force
18:21:29 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:21:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:21:56 <manu> s/Topic: Push vs Pull Payment Flows//
18:22:02 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:22:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:25:42 <manu> s/Meeting: Web Payments IG - Use Cases Task Force//
18:26:52 <manu> Meeting: Web Payments IG Use Cases Task Force
18:26:59 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:26:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:28:32 <manu> s/Meeting: Web Payments Use Cases TF//
18:28:36 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:28:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:29:13 <manu> s/TOPIC: Push vs Pull Payment Flows//
18:29:14 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:29:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
18:33:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Ian, in Team_(wpay)16:58Z
18:33:02 <Zakim> Team_(wpay)16:58Z has ended
18:33:02 <Zakim> Attendees were Davd_Ezell, dezell, +1.540.961.aaaa, manu, +1.312.504.aacc, Ian, Laurent, [IPcaller], Katie_Haritos-Shea, +33.6.51.24.aadd, jean-yves, dlongley, Pat,
18:33:03 <Zakim> ... +33.6.22.04.aaee, CyrilV
18:33:16 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
18:33:16 <Zakim> apparently Team_(wpay)16:58Z has ended, manu
18:33:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, padler, jean-yves, Zakim, dezell, Ian, chaals, dlehn, Karen, manu, trackbot
18:33:24 <manu> zakim, bye
18:33:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wpay
18:33:51 <manu> s/Breif/Brief/
18:33:54 <manu> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:33:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-wpay-minutes.html manu
22:12:08 <padler> padler has joined #wpay
22:12:26 <Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Communications_Strategy_Task_Force
22:17:54 <padler> https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about/what-we-do/payments-information/remittance-coalition