03:07:56 RRSAgent has joined #wpay 03:07:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/15-wpay-irc 03:08:15 rrsagent,bye 03:08:24 rrsagent, set logs public 03:08:26 rrsagent,bye 03:08:26 I see no action items 13:29:36 RRSAgent has joined #wpay 13:29:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/15-wpay-irc 13:29:43 zakim, this will be wpay 13:29:43 ok, manu; I see T&S_WEBPYMT(WPAY_AGENT)9:30AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 13:29:46 rrsagent, make logs public 13:29:55 T&S_WEBPYMT(WPAY_AGENT)9:30AM has now started 13:30:02 +Davd_Ezell 13:30:11 zakim, code 13:30:11 I don't understand 'code', manu 13:30:14 zakim, code? 13:30:14 the conference code is 9729 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu 13:30:20 zakim, Davd is me 13:30:20 +dezell; got it 13:30:33 +padler 13:30:34 zakim, call Ian-Office 13:30:35 ok, Ian; the call is being made 13:30:39 +[IPcaller] 13:30:45 zakim, I am [IPcaller] 13:30:45 ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller] 13:30:54 +??P12 13:31:07 zakim, ??P12 is me 13:31:07 +AdrianHB; got it 13:31:49 zakim, call Ian-Office 13:31:49 ok, Ian; the call is being made 13:31:50 +Ian 13:31:59 zakim, who's here? 13:31:59 On the phone I see dezell, padler, [IPcaller], AdrianHB, Ian 13:32:01 On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, padler, jorgezaccaro, AdrianHB, Karen, chaals, Zakim, Ian, manu, trackbot, wseltzer 13:33:40 zakim, who's here? 13:33:40 On the phone I see dezell, padler, [IPcaller], AdrianHB, Ian 13:33:42 On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, padler, jorgezaccaro, AdrianHB, Karen, chaals, Zakim, Ian, manu, trackbot, wseltzer 13:33:49 zakim, I am [IPcaller] 13:33:49 ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller] 13:33:55 agenda? 13:34:03 agenda== 13:34:07 zakim, clear agenda 13:34:07 agenda cleared 13:34:18 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015May/0110.html 13:34:30 agenda+ summarize where we are 13:34:34 agenda+ vision doc 13:34:37 agenda+ reqs 13:34:41 agenda+ capabilities 13:34:46 agenda+ sprint.ng 13:34:47 Chair: Pat 13:34:52 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015May/0110.html 13:35:05 Meeting: Web Payments Architecture Task Force Meeting 13:35:09 scribe: manu 13:35:12 topic: Pat's recent travels 13:35:26 Pat: There is some interesting stuff going on w/ http://txpush.org/ 13:35:49 Manu: Did you get a sense of their level of activity? 13:36:14 Pat: They're trying to standardize a transaction push hub. 13:36:43 jheuer has joined #wpay 13:37:20 q? 13:37:43 Topic: Summarize state of document proposals 13:38:03 Ian: We've been looking at the work being done in Architecture piece, I suggested a different way of approaching things. 13:38:14 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Communications_Strategy_Task_Force/Doc_Relations 13:38:16 Ian: All the pieces are important, we are trying to get better shared understanding of how they fit together. 13:38:38 Ian: Here are the things we're working on - note new documents - Payment Architecture is now split into Vision, Requirements, Capabilities 13:38:50 + +49.303.3.aaaa 13:38:53 Ian: Use cases suggest requirements - those requirements are ultimately where source of recommendations for standards work are derived. 13:38:57 zakim, aaaa is Joerg 13:38:57 +Joerg; got it 13:39:25 Ian: We want to propose new standards work, how do we get there? 13:39:51 Ian: We will be deriving requirements from use cases, then that will be the basis on what we think needs standardization. 13:40:28 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision 13:40:30 Ian: At the same time, we have a lot of other discussion going on - we have pieces floating out there - manifesto, architecture document - we all agree that vision is important wrt. payments architecture for the Web - let's make it short and stable and it can guide us - publish it as its own thing. 13:41:02 This is the current place we've put as of yesterday. My understanding is that Adrian is going to work w/ whoever he can find to bring that to the IG face-to-face meeting - 30-60 minute discussion about Vision. That'll be our guide for our work. 13:41:10 s/This is the/Ian: This is the/ 13:41:55 Ian: It's not requirements or capabilities - it's just a vision. Familiar topics have been pulled out up front - W3C members should be familiar w/ that stuff. There are other payment-specific stuff. 13:42:19 Ian: I'd like to see this wiki become that Vision document. By pulling it out, it'll lighten other material. 13:42:39 Ian: People said "enough high-level documents!" let's get to the meaty stuff (apologies to vegetarians) 13:43:44 q? 13:43:46 Ian: We largely know what we need wrt. invoices, payment requests, etc. Let's work on those types of things in parallel. Ian will take the lead on requirements w/ a simple wiki to write down requirements through analysis of use cases. In parallel, the architecture/capabilities document will move forward - focus on capabilities and prioritize them w/o going into too much detail. 13:43:47 q+ 13:44:10 Ian: For example, needing a timestamp is too low level - but saying we need a mechanism to do invoices is not. 13:44:12 ack padler 13:44:22 Pat: I like the idea of having a separate requirements document. 13:44:51 Pat: The more successful systems have been ones that have a vision, w/ requirements and capabilities co-evolve... then you feel good about both. 13:45:32 Pat: I do want to clarify that - we talk about priorities - the priorities themselves are not going to be in the architecture document. Some kind of priority list - capabilities is not temporal - shouldn't have anything that says "when"... just the "whats" 13:45:50 Ian: It may be that there are dependencies that are teased out by documenting capabilities - that sort of specifies prioritization. 13:46:04 [+1 to a) fewer documents (whew!) and b) focusing on the three primary segments - use cases, architecture, requirements. My experience is that this is the correct approach.] 13:46:05 q+ to say we need a map in each of these docs. 13:46:21 q+ 13:46:35 zakim, [IPcaller] is Manu 13:46:35 +Manu; got it 13:46:38 q? 13:47:21 Pat: It's a good idea to break out identity/credentials from transactions - it may not be all in a payment agent and an identity agent that cooperate. That capabilities document really has to do a good job of laying out how we want to group responsiblities. 13:47:44 Pat: We want to understand how all these pieces play together in an architecture. 13:47:45 q+ to say we are downplaying payment agent and why 13:47:49 ack IP 13:47:52 ack manu 13:47:53 q+ 13:47:56 ack [IPcaller] 13:47:56 [IPcaller], you wanted to say we need a map in each of these docs. 13:48:24 Pat: I think you were in Paris when we talked about this - when we suggested priority order - that was for sprint planning to focus. I think that was helpful. 13:48:30 ack [IPcaller] 13:48:47 +1 for the capabilities doc attempting to define roles and responsibilities of system components 13:48:55 Manu: Would like a map of documents in each doc 13:49:00 ...so that from any doc you can find your way 13:49:03 +1 to table of contents/map... 13:49:05 [+1] 13:49:08 +1 13:49:21 + +1.914.656.aabb 13:49:28 zakim, aabb is Erik 13:49:28 +Erik; got it 13:50:02 Ian: At the start of rewrite to architecture - I did the map in text - I felt we needed to tell people that - totally agree. 13:50:07 ack Ian 13:50:07 Ian, you wanted to say we are downplaying payment agent and why 13:50:09 Erik has joined #wpay 13:50:20 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Communications_Strategy_Task_Force/Doc_Relations 13:50:28 Ian: We are reaching consensus on the mapping of a different set of documents, listed here ^^ 13:50:38 q- 13:50:43 Ian: We're trying to organize material in a nice way - we're on the topic of capabilities. 13:51:10 Ian: One of the things we wrestled with - wrt. Payment Agent - having a simple notion - web of payment agents - while nice, it's a bit cart before horse. 13:51:39 Ian: We've moved from talking about container talking about functionality to break out a set of capabilities. It's a more natural way to describe what we need and achieve vision and satisfy requirements. 13:51:51 q+ to say avoid payment agent, focus on capabilities/services. 13:52:42 Ian: This is an iterative process - it doesn't mean Payment Agents go away - we free ourselves up wrt. constraining it to a Payment Agent - we may decide that we don't need to talk about Payment Agents in some places. Or that Payment Agent shrinks in functionality to the part that's the interface between merchant / browser /etc. 13:52:44 q+ to get consensus on the scope of the capabilities doc 13:52:51 Ian: We should turn our attention to capabilities. 13:52:52 ack Manu 13:52:52 Manu, you wanted to say avoid payment agent, focus on capabilities/services. 13:53:23 Manu: I like the concept of the payment agent, but agree with Ian that it's constraining the discussion. I do like the idea of focusing on capabilities. Ian proposed services and I pushed back, but now I'm changing my mind. 13:53:25 q+ to talk about capabilities and services and composition... 13:53:37 q+ 13:53:53 Manu: We might say therefore that 'these services need to exist' and maybe we can map to various concepts like "payment agent for the user" later in the doc 13:53:57 ...so +1 to services that we need 13:54:07 ack AdrianHB 13:54:07 AdrianHB, you wanted to get consensus on the scope of the capabilities doc 13:54:08 ...I did a pass through the doc to check whether that would work and it seems to 13:54:28 AdrianHB: Can we define the scope of what's in the capabilities document? 13:54:51 q+ to set a timeframe to get a first draft for each of these docs. 13:55:05 q+ 13:55:07 AdrianHB: I like Pat's idea - define roles of each service -where they fit into the map of actors. 13:55:15 AdrianHB: I think it would be good to have that in the document as well. 13:55:17 q? 13:55:27 manu: +1 mapping services/capabilities to actors. 13:55:30 ack padler 13:55:30 padler, you wanted to talk about capabilities and services and composition... 13:56:03 Pat: I like not focusing exclusively on a Payment Agent. I don't think a document w/ just services and capabilities is complete enough. 13:56:58 q+ to talk about payment-specific and general services 13:56:59 Pat: When you apply services/capabilities to specific constraints - those constraints influence requirements - particular aspects of the services that have to be accounted for. How do we functionally compose an architecture out of the services - module for doing transaction stuff - container for doing collection of capabilities/services. 13:57:37 +??P16 13:57:38 Pat: It's going to influence the way it's going to communicate - we want to get to a point where we grow, then tease parts apart, etc. 13:58:22 Pat: I think it's going to be important - capabilities/framing - it's a collection of capabilities/services that we find in the architecture - it's critical to get cohesive picture at a high level - how is it composed? 13:58:58 -??P16 13:59:07 q? 13:59:20 (+1 to needing to describe composition in some capacity) 13:59:40 Pat: Those microservices - considerations for deployment - that'll make it useful. 13:59:42 ack Erik 13:59:42 ack Erik 13:59:45 Service is a container of features and capabilities but bound by use cases and requirements. Payment agent is an implementation of a service. 14:00:17 (Ian hear's Erik's +1 to doc organization) 14:00:29 Erik: I didn't get a reply back on security/messaging 14:00:49 Ian: Erik sent detailed requirements about authentication, messaging, security, etc. 14:01:13 Ian: I have not studied that yet, it's a detailed document and it belongs in the "Requirements" document that we're talking about. 14:01:41 Ian: What's interesting though is that at one level it belongs in requirements, on the other hand, it's grouping things together functionally. 14:02:01 Ian: I don't agree w/ all of it - but it may also be a capabilities thing - we need to do the work in parallel - where do things fit in most neatly? 14:02:07 q? 14:02:13 Ian: We'll create a wiki page where these sorts of things should go. 14:02:31 Ian: I'll look at your document and weave those things in. 14:02:57 Erik: These are base requirements for web interfaces to connect to their systems. 14:03:08 Ian: Good news is it's big long list - but we have to prioritize them. 14:03:21 q+ to ask that requirements are labeled with an ID for traceability to the capabilities document.. 14:03:24 q+ 14:03:24 Erik: Let me know where you want these and which documents to weave them into. 14:03:38 Erik: Didn't want to send this out before we understood where they'd go. 14:03:47 ack Manu 14:03:47 Manu, you wanted to set a timeframe to get a first draft for each of these docs. 14:03:47 ack Manu 14:04:05 Manu: Good discussion; hearing consensus for this approach 14:04:20 ...people seem to agree also on capabilities scope (services + composition) 14:04:31 +1 14:04:44 ...we have 2 weeks to get these docs into shape so people can review before the FTF 14:04:53 ...PROPOSED: Docs to share on 1 June 14:05:01 -Joerg 14:05:26 q? 14:05:41 Ian: it's more important that it be available to read - wiki is fine. 14:06:11 My phone got disconnected... sorry 14:06:12 [Thanks Ian for doing all the hard work] 14:06:34 +1 to idea of focusing on WIKI as delivery tool.. 14:06:50 for June 1... 14:07:05 +Joerg 14:07:20 zakim, mute Joerg 14:07:20 Joerg should now be muted 14:07:25 my connection seem really bad! 14:07:29 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Communications_Strategy_Task_Force/Doc_Relations#Core_Deliverables 14:08:01 What are you charginf me for - or with? ;-) 14:08:21 I can't understand a thing 14:08:35 q+ to ask what we're doing with the glossary 14:08:38 I will just participate via IRC until the phone thing is solved... 14:08:40 q- 14:08:45 ack Ian 14:08:45 Ian, you wanted to talk about payment-specific and general services 14:08:52 Ian: Glossary - not seen many updates. 14:08:59 q+ to mention that we're biting off a lot. 14:09:15 ack manu 14:09:15 Manu, you wanted to mention that we're biting off a lot. 14:09:27 Manu: These are a lot of docs for the number of people we have assigned. 14:09:33 ...my hope is that they will be as short as possible 14:09:46 ...I think Vision can be rev'd quickly 14:09:53 ...this means that our time will be split pretty badly 14:10:00 ...won't be able to help each other out as much as we have been 14:10:14 (+1 to enlisting more help!!) 14:10:23 ...my hope is that Adrian can be done by next week. 14:10:33 (Ian plans to ship the URI to the group and ask for people to dive in) 14:10:53 ...so I propose we ignore the roadmap for now and look at the priorities 14:11:54 Ian: We need something done w/ Roadmap 14:12:15 -Joerg 14:12:18 Ian: We need to have some draft charters ready by face-to-face... maybe capabilities folks can enumerate the blocks w/o detail first. See if you're comfortable w/ that first. 14:12:24 q? 14:12:35 ack pat 14:12:39 q+ to ask for specific deliverables by end of next week. 14:12:45 ack padler 14:12:45 padler, you wanted to ask that requirements are labeled with an ID for traceability to the capabilities document.. 14:13:28 Pat: as we write capabilities doc, we can point to requirements/rationale 14:13:54 Ian: So, good point - we need categorization so we can be systematic 14:13:59 what kinds of capabilities are we talking about? Do device capabilities play a role? 14:14:16 Yes, I can have IDs. And will have a scheme for organizing 14:14:20 Pat: We have to figure out categorization and how to tie all of these things together. 14:14:21 (Sorry, I gave up on the phone...) 14:15:30 Pat: how is information passed between different actors in the system - that's going to be hard to do when we're capturing requirements. 14:15:30 q+ to propose that we describe services as 's service 14:16:00 Pat: Base architecture - we had consistent agreement w/ 3 interfaces - how does this thing, collection of things - user-facing requirements - what do browsers or other devices need to call/get access to the service. 14:16:10 Pat: We're treating other systems as having different interfaces. 14:17:32 +Joerg 14:17:33 Ian: I don't know in advance what right categorization is - let me try it out - do the analysis 14:17:44 Ian: I don't know a-priori what perfect categorization is. 14:17:51 I can hear you again. 14:18:08 Pat: Without categorization - when you talk about security/accessibility - "of what" - the system must be secure - what does someone do w/ that. It's not implementable. 14:19:25 Ian: I don't know if all requirements we articulate in requirements wil be implementable - so we need to explore what the right state is. It's inappropriate to say "at this level, you must use JSON-LD" - but having a general format requirement "like extensibility" - may be possible. 14:19:47 Erik: We can coordinate all these things at the face-to-face. 14:19:49 q? 14:20:05 ack dezell 14:20:20 agreed that we don't want to talk about very specific things, but a consistent understanding of interfaces and boundaries is extremely important.. 14:20:29 dezell: great work - this is all looking good - want to echo what Pat was saying about "visible requirements" in our specs. 14:21:52 dezell: Other requirements - may be requirements on financial service providers - don't think W3C will be the place that W3C puts on financial service provider - seeing two things separately will help us. I had a heated/extended conversation w/ a member - most everything he was complaining about was about requirements that are not visible in our specs. There are things that FSPs have to do, but it's not necessarily about web payments - web payments is not browser 14:21:52 payments. The browser is an agent, that's it - the Web is more than that. 14:21:55 +1 to not limiting our work to the browser 14:22:11 sorry 14:22:16 last comment ... 14:22:23 s/sorry// 14:22:28 s/last comment ...// 14:22:33 s/I can hear you again.// 14:22:35 Please think of how to use telcon time Monday to best effect since we're short. 14:22:41 zakim, drop dezell 14:22:41 dezell is being disconnected 14:22:43 -dezell 14:22:44 +1 14:22:55 ack AdrianHB 14:22:55 AdrianHB, you wanted to ask what we're doing with the glossary and to propose that we describe services as 's service 14:23:32 +dezell 14:24:04 Adrian: Where we're trying to define roles/responsibilities - rather than trying to be specific, we could say "payee's credential service needs these capabilities" - set of services that all actors have access to. Doesn't specify how they're interrelated. Next step is to figure out how they tie together. Just a proposal. 14:24:06 ack Manu 14:24:06 Manu, you wanted to ask for specific deliverables by end of next week. 14:25:49 q? 14:26:04 Manu: Adrian will work on Vision document and have it more or less done by next Thursday. 14:26:33 q+ to ask what the priority information needed for June f2f is.. 14:26:35 Manu: Ian will work on Requirements and Roadmap w/ Manu and Charter. 14:26:40 q? 14:26:54 Manu: Pat will work on capabilities and move that further along. 14:27:01 q+ to ask what draft charters we are currently thinking of putting forward 14:27:32 Manu: We need to specify actors, capabilities, composition. Pat will focus on that 14:27:44 (Ian reiterates his request that "high level capabilities' should be set forth before details) 14:27:51 Adrian on vision (due next week) 14:27:57 Ian and Erik on Requirements 14:27:59 I can help with capabilities 14:28:07 +1 14:28:39 zakim, who is on the call? 14:28:39 On the phone I see padler, Manu, AdrianHB, Ian, Erik, Joerg, dezell 14:28:47 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Communications_Strategy_Task_Force/Doc_Relations#Requirements 14:29:31 Adrian: I'll help w/ capabilities once I get done w/ vision. 14:29:44 q? 14:29:57 ack padler 14:29:57 padler, you wanted to ask what the priority information needed for June f2f is.. 14:30:12 Pat: We're moving back to getting a bunch of documents done in a row - wrt. priority iterations - are we using v1 v2 to go through rough order we go through these things on. 14:31:49 If we start top-down, loyalty, coupons, vouchers need to be mentioned, but shouldn't get deeper coverage, right? 14:31:54 Ian: Regarding a work plan, in order to get stuff done in two weeks - do all capabilities - or guess that certain capabilities will not be version 1. 14:32:04 jheuer, +1 - yep, I think so. 14:32:20 s/jheuer, +1 - yep/Manu: jheuer, +1 - yep/ 14:32:35 Sorry guys - I can't stay any longer. Speak to you on Monday 14:32:44 -Joerg 14:33:28 Pat: When we think about what's required for the June meeting vs. work going on wrt. WGs - we're taking a shotgun approach - can we clear up what absolutely needs to be done for June so we run a good meeting vs. what we need to prep beyond June. Payments roundtable - first draft of requirements out there - it feels like we're trying to get those documents so far forward - I'm having a hard time where the priorities are. 14:34:03 Ian: Yes, that's a good conversation for Monday. I am trying to drive the group to express the first WG charter - that's what our mission is - that's what W3M wants - I want to get us there. 14:34:40 Ian: Timing so we can meet at TPAC means that we have to have something by June - we need to know what groups are going to do. If we're proposing a charter mid-august to the membership, we have two months to work on charter - we will not be done w/ taking feedback on use cases, elaborating requirements, etc. 14:35:00 Ian: If the group first meets the last week of october, we have from June to October to take stuff into account. 14:35:20 Pat: Is the bigger priority for us to have a well structured/formed way of capturing requirements and have a solid start on them before June. 14:36:00 Pat: If we're saying "here's the workplan approach" - then we have another two months after June with people contributing - refine the documents - it feels like we're prioritizing something that we need by october. 14:36:35 Pat: The requirements - how much time do we put into requirements being exhaustive? or is it to focus on getting core of that in - at the meeting, following the meeting - 14:37:07 Ian: I need one or more draft charters that we're happy with by June - we get there by describing capabilities and getting requirements together. That is the most important thing we can do in June. The requirements can happen in parallel. 14:38:09 Ian: The requirements, as we start to write them down, we'll have questions - for example "standard vocabulary" - go through use cases through next level of detail. That may be a good use of the face-to-face time. We don't need a mature set of requirements by the face-to-face meeting. I need to spend some time on requirements, doing the work in a vacuum is unhealthy - but accept that they're being done in parallel for a long time. 14:38:23 Ian: There are lots of ideas already circulating - people imagine that those capabilities are necessary. 14:38:33 Pat: I need a good read on where we're spending time. 14:39:03 Ian: We need a healthy understanding of functional blocks and capabilities - but not so far as API or format requirements. Prioritized use cases. 14:39:39 Ian: Manu and I were chatting yesterday - "who needs to be doing what for us to get payments deployed to the Web"... we were looking at different v1 scenarios - who would that involve - that are the capabilities that we would need. 14:40:09 Ian: If a minimal implementation would involve payment agents in the cloud, where we're using standard web protocols - native implementation of payment agent - we don't have a way to communicate to a native agent. 14:40:28 q? 14:40:29 Ian: We were playing around w/ what it would actually look like to setup something that implements these standards. It's an interesting way to prioritize. 14:40:42 Ian: We're going to focus on smallest set of things to enable payment from end to end. 14:41:00 Ian: How do we get deployment of a system. 14:41:01 q+ to end call. 14:41:16 ian: What do we need to get done first, and who do we need at the table. 14:41:18 q- 14:41:25 ack AdrianHB 14:41:25 AdrianHB, you wanted to ask what draft charters we are currently thinking of putting forward 14:41:43 Pat: We need to align expectations w/ the larger group. 14:41:54 AdrianHB: We're talking about having draft charters at the face-to-face. 14:41:59 [Monday-review what's being done, who's doing it, and who can help?] 14:42:02 Ian: One of them is a Payment-focused group. 14:42:21 Ian: This is what we expect the group to do in v1. 14:42:41 Ian: it sounds like there'll be a Payments Working Group 14:42:47 Ian: There is authentication work that needs to happen. 14:43:03 Ian: There's also credentials stuff - what we need them for, etc. That should inform that discussion. 14:43:15 Adrian: Ok, that's fine, just trying to get where the thinking is. 14:43:21 Ian: That could also be a Monday chat. 14:43:45 Pat: Agree, that would be very helpful - does W3C already have groups to do that? That may help us as we're composing things / re-composing things. 14:43:54 Pat: That's helpful to understand. 14:44:13 Ian: Two individuals have asked to participate as IEs... Jacob Nienan and Daniel Smeds. 14:44:29 s/Two individuals have asked to participate as IEs... Jacob Nienan and Daniel Smeds.// 14:45:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:45:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/15-wpay-minutes.html manu 14:45:40 -AdrianHB 14:45:43 -dezell 14:46:07 -Manu 14:46:13 -padler 14:46:15 -Ian 14:46:50 -Erik 14:46:51 T&S_WEBPYMT(WPAY_AGENT)9:30AM has ended 14:46:51 Attendees were Davd_Ezell, dezell, padler, AdrianHB, Ian, +49.303.3.aaaa, Joerg, Manu, +1.914.656.aabb, Erik 14:47:01 rrsagent, make minutes 14:47:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/15-wpay-minutes.html Ian 14:47:07 rrsagent, set logs team 14:48:16 Present: Adrian, DavidEzell, Manu, Pat, Ian, Erik, Joerg 14:49:04 i/I like not focusing exclusively on a Payment Agent/Topic: Capabilities document/ 14:50:01 i/Adrian will work on Vision document/Topic: Next work sprint/ 14:50:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:50:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/15-wpay-minutes.html manu 14:51:13 rrsagent, make logs public 14:51:15 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:51:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/15-wpay-minutes.html manu 16:37:45 Karen_ has joined #wpay 17:03:55 Karen has joined #wpay 17:05:24 Karen_ has joined #wpay 18:06:35 Karen has joined #wpay 18:37:25 Ian, you around? 18:39:10 yessir 18:39:32 718 260 9447 18:45:14 Erik? 18:49:28 Sorry, interview powwow 18:49:32 About candidate 18:49:40 I will get back with you soon Ian 18:49:48 I have a meeting in 11 minutes for 1 hour 18:49:50 am available after that 18:50:25 Karen_ has joined #wpay 18:51:47 Wendy around? 18:51:58 Tell Wendy I sent her an email. 18:52:19 (wseltzer is on irc...so now she knows!) 18:52:45 hi Erik 18:52:49 got your email :) 19:30:04 Ian? 19:33:33 Ian, I sent you a text message but it bounced to call me when you are done 19:33:50 718 number is not mobile