<Ian> Scribe: Ian

Roadmap updates

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html#goals

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html#use-cases

Manu: Use cases link to in-scope use cases with notes

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to ask about clarifying scope of the document..

padler: One of the questions - the scope of the web payments roadmap...is this an IG deliverable?
... that shows activities across different groups?
... or is it a payment architecture WG framing?
... if it's an IG deliverable, I think we should not have pulled out identity and credentials

<AdrianHB> +1 to making this the IG roadmap and keeping id and creds in scope

+1 to IG roadmap

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to Web Payments only or broader.

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/roadmap/index.html#groups-and-scope

manu: I think the intent is to say "for web payments, here's what the IG sees is necessary across different was

<anders> May I ask about one item on http://www.w3.org/2015/06/payments-wg-charter.html ?

Anders, please send me email offlist

<anders> ok

<manu> Ian: I think we should have a new section 3 - that basically says "Other topics of importance to the Interest Group.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to respond to question on how to reflect ID/Creds..

<manu> Ian: It's hard to prioritize those, so it should be flat list.

padler: Maybe we could use the revised capability groups in 2.3 and provide a current status annotation.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to give background on why document is organized like it is.

manu: I did not update 2.3 since did not know yet what to put in there
... what you are proposing sounds good, but I have a concern...we have a section called version 1
... in that section we should focus on what the IG said is in version one
... and the groups that will help make that happen
... credentials and identity should be in the document but not in version 1 section
... So after v1 we can say "related work happening in parallel" and list goals and groups

<manu> Ian: I do think it belongs in a different section, I don't know if the title of the section should suggest a status that is "Parallel"

<manu> Ian: "Additional topics in discussion" - listing status will be useful to people.

<manu> Ian: Capabilities are distinct - how do you organize them - is it prioritized, is it a big integrated list.

<manu> Ian: We may not need to worry about bindings to capabilities in section 3

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest we do away with versioning

<manu> Ian: The other stuff, we may not know how they map to capabilities yet. We should worry less about it there.

AdrianHB: I think Ian has said something similar to my thought: do we need to talk about "version 1"?
... we are splitting work based on capabilities

<manu> Ian: I think versioning is helpful shorthand for "all the stuff we plan to do first"

IJ: I can live with another term than "version" but short label is useful

padler: the question I was after first --- it seems that when we say "version 1" .... Of what? The IG? or specific WG tasks?

(IJ: IG V1)

<manu> I think we're saying "version 1 of the IG work"

<manu> "version 1 of Web Payments"

["Phase 1" could work instead of "Version 1"]

padler: from a roadmap perspective, IG is defining different scopes of what goes into the WG(s)..but the roadmap itself doesn't have a version

"Ready for standardization"

"Not ready for standardization"

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that versioning is helpful.

<manu> Ian: That's another way of doing the split - "things that are ready for standardization" vs. "not yet ready for standardization".

<manu> Ian: The roadmap has only ever been meant as a view to resources and planning - the capabilities document is more about "if you want to see the full picture, see the capabilities document".

<manu> Ian: I think we've tried to make the Roadmap be a layer to achieving that.

<manu> Ian: This is supposed to be the IG's view of the whole world of Web Payments.

<padler> it's to say that each WG may have a version..

<padler> or state..

<manu> Ian: "Show me the whole architecture - show me the ones that are in process..."

manu: I think I've got enough feedback at this point to rev the roadmap

<manu> Ian: The current charter is stabilizing - issue w/ charter for Monday. David Baron and folks at Apple seem to think that we need more than best practices for payment instrument registration - there needs to be a spec there.

AdrianHB: I think the "best practices" framing came from earlier...but I also think we need a spec
... about instrument registration
... I think there should be a spec there
... my thinking is that we should be prescribing what a payment scheme needs to have to be registrable
... what does an instrument need to do to be registered
... different schemes will work differently with different wallets..>I think we want to get away from that but it's a big piece of work

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say he thought we were proposing WebIDL for registration?

manu: I thought we were suggesting some webidl around registration

AdrianHB: Would it be done through the browser? What about if I install the paypal app or a native wallet?

Manu: I think we should avoid the non-browser bit in V1

<manu> Ian: I'd like this conversation to happen on Monday - could you guys get to agreement w/ Magda/Sam/David on this, that'd be helpful.

<manu> Ian: I'd like charter to be stable on July 22nd timeframe.

<anders> WebIDL means that the browser is on the critical path also for v1, right?

Use case updates

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html

manu gets link

Manu: Two controversial changes

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#discovery-of-offer

1) I added "target version" annotation

scribe: that was to address comments that we were trying to boil the ocean
... I hope this will address this

" A Target version which specifies the intended version of the Web Payments Architecture that will enable the use case. "

<manu> Ian: I like that - I would add a sentence after the docs on "target version" - add a sentence: "The IG expects that an incremental standardization of capabilities implied by these use cases" - not everything will happen at the same time.

IJ: Why did you think that was controversial?

Manu: We earlier had decided not to put version information

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to talk about scope.. :)

padler: I like understanding of which use cases are important
... I think the versioning information is best if we somehow link them into another doc
... to a picture of what goes where

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#delivery-of-receipt

padler: Putting "Version 1" feels to me to be merging what is "for a WG" with something that is more like "how work is organized"

<padler> +1

<manu> Ian: About the word "version" and desirable linkage to bigger picture - if we want to take the Roadmap document seriously as a location to allocate/prioritize. We don't want to update the use cases that often (linkages)

<manu> Ian: Instead of target version - we could say "standardization in 2017" - maybe standardization status?

<manu> Ian: It is status information, "begin in 2015" and link to the roadmap - let people do indirection themselves. If we're organizing Roadmap - we can point to the roadmap.

<manu> Ian: I don't know what the right verbiage is from the use cases document - maybe integrate comments on the word "version" here.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to talk about "version"

<manu> Ian: It's useful, but it's redundant - makes it fragile - probably useful to readers

padler: I think that talking about use cases having components that are worked on in parallel by different groups...
... I think that the use case catalog
... to Ian's point..putting version information in there....as groups change and learn from their experience
... if we have to update the use cases it can be tedious
... if we can keep the use cases doc non time-based....and link into the IG roadmap

(So the alternative proposal is to have a big warning in section 1 about how not all this is happening at once)

padler: I think we are mixing here WG and IG deliverables

manu: I have a pretty good idea of changes I can make

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to move on to next item.

IJ: We could put a big warning at the front "look at the roadmap"

Manu: We had that and it wasn't enough...so propose we try something else with more linkages
... and try to reduce the brittleness of those links

<manu> Ian: Maybe we can have a big block - at the top?

deliverables

Use case updates

Manu: the other thing I removed was to remove links to the goals
... it was causing confusion and not adding a lot
... also, linkages were not specific enough
... so while I agree it would be good to say how use cases achieve goals, I don't think that document is quite there yet
... when I removed goals, didn't seem to have much of an effect

<manu> Ian: The reason I wanted Goals in here is so we could start from a high-level thing and justify why we're including things. I think the Goals have merged into the Vision. Maybe that's how we want to map things. I found Goals not adding a lot to the document.

<manu> Ian: Not sure tie to Vision is necessary right now.

<manu> Ian: We don't say much about Regulation...

<manu> Ian: I think for Regulators reading this document, let's do tie-ins to regulatory compliance.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk to regulatory.

<manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webpayments/raw-file/default/latest/use-cases/index.html#how-this-document-is-organized

manu: I half did something
... I added the label "Regulatory" to the dictionary
... but didn't add any actual annotations

IJ: I'm fine to have removed goals annotations

deliverables

Manu: I propose for next deliverables:

- within next month a new WD of the use cases

(IJ: +1 since it would be good to have fresh use cases prior to WG charter)

scribe: including AML / KYC use cases

[IJ suggests also we figure out how to include Alibaba use cases]

scribe: also there's a KYC use case for doing wire transfers over the web
... Arie at the FTF meeting also said the entire wealth management industry tied to banking and finance ... you have to have some kind of verifiable way of identifying people

<manu> Ian: If possible, it would be good to have it by early August. When we do call for review.

<manu> Ian: I'd rather have it easier to do and get it out by July.

Manu: 10-12 hours of work

<manu> Ian: I don't think we require WG consensus for this rev - Chairs could make the call.

capabilities

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

padler: Who do we quickly cover these with the group?
... if we can talk about this and somehow link the picture and definitions to specific WGs
... we could identify streams of work for each block
... it would be great to say "we need a CG around coupons" or "a recruiting effort around loyalty"

manu: Word "ownership" is a concern to me

padler: maybe we just merge middle 2 bubbles
... so we have identity + accounts/clearing/settlement + commerce

ciao

<manu> scribenick: manu

Pat: Maybe we need a bigger bubble to bind "Accounts and Ownership" and "Clearing and Settlement"
... Middle section is well taken care of - we have IGs, WGs, and CGs doing work. Here's where those things are at... what are the boundaries?
... Workgroup developing charters - people could contribute their labor to that part.

Manu: Yeah, middle bit is the only problematic one... they kind of all go together, hmm not really.

Pat: Yeah, we have a CG focused just on Clearing and Settlement.
... You could have a WG accountable for both - maybe you have one Task Force on Clearing and Settlement, and one Task Force working on Accounts and Ownership.

Manu: it feels like 'ownership' touches a bunch of these things.

Pat: You need programmatic access to accounts and ownership - going back to resource constraints w/in W3C - one of the things we can raise w/ IG on Monday, if we put bounding box around it - we have a broad Web Payments WG - that has Task Forces for Accounts/Ownership and Clearing/Settlement
... Then you have one group focused on Identity/Credentials

Manu: Ok, so we have a "Web Payments WG" - and that contains several Task Forces / Community Groups: "Accounts and Ownership Task Force", "Clearing and Settlement Community Group", "Payments Task Force"

Pat: if we're talking about a Web Payments WG - a Web-based clearing/settlement scheme, if it's something different, that may fall under Web Payments WG?
... The WG would go back to IG and talk about how Task Forces are organized.
... The capability groups are just a way to compartmentalize scope for WGs.
... I can see us putting a WG behind each one of those things.
... Maybe you change purview of Web Payments IG to show map of the work. Identity and Credentials have the Credentials CG recruiting for full fledged WG.
... We should've been a Web Commerce IG... that would've had Identity in the scope (clearly)
... So, that's where I was going w/ comments last week. This diagram, what's in scope on definitions on IG perspective, let's us focus on who is doing the work - put use case in place to "person walking into store" or "send a payment request from payee to payer" - great middle box on diagram... IG would have a master list of which use cases link up to broader commerce scenarios.

Manu: It's clear in my mind what we should do at this point w/ the groups.

Pat: Maybe I should update the diagram and send it out - don't want to run afoul of W3M. What we're suggesting is Payments IG will coordinate the work of multiple WGs that would be chartered.
... If you're going to start working on docs, I can tweak this particular picture: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups
... If you can send me back thoughts - I could get stuff out late tonight.

Manu: I can take a look at it tonight.

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)

Found Scribe: Ian
Inferring ScribeNick: Ian
Found ScribeNick: manu
ScribeNicks: manu, Ian
Present: AdrianHB Manu Ian Pat
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jul/0006.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 02 Jul 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/02-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: