See also: IRC log
<Ian> scribe: Ian
Jia: I have been doing mobile
payments for a year
... my focus is on the unbanked
<manu> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150730/
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: publication should happen today
http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150730/
scribe: list of changes is in the
status section
... Alibaba colleagues would like to understand how the use
cases will be reflected in the capabilities doc
Manu: Several hundred people
involved in US Fed faster payments task force
... they are creating evaluation criteria to apply to solutions
(specifically in the US) for future (faster) payment
systems
... three days ago on our weekly IG call we proposed to fill
out the checklist of the evaluation criteria
... to ensure that our use cases cover things that the US Fed
task force thinks will be important factors for next generation
systems
... the other thing would be for us to provide them with
feedback so they understand how effective their criteria are
for doing an evaluation
... are they too specific? too vague? confusing?
... so I have created a spreadsheet!
... to help us apply the criteria
... I can't share the document broadly yet
... I hope to be able to do so early next week
<manu> Ian: So, let's not do this right now because everyone can't participate yet.
Manu: This is mostly a heads-up
IJ: Are you looking for volunteers (when we can do the evaluation)?
<manu> Ian: When we can work on this in public, let's do that.
Manu: I have volunteered...but
welcome extra help from people who are interested in doing this
evaluation
... We also got a request from someone on the faster payments
task force to participate on this work and work with us as we
do the evaluation.
<manu> Ian: We have a couple of options - if he's a guest at a meeting or two, that's not a problem. If he wants to do this for 4 months, that's when we get into Invited Expert territory.
Manu: He is interested in
participating more deeply. He has some implementation
experience as well.
... and deep knowledge of payments industry.
<manu> Ian: If you can introduce him to me, that would be a good start.
<manu> Ian: The Chairs need to be transparent about our priorities - we're in a transition period, so it's okay to spend some time on this, but the group needs to know where we're headed. It's up to the chairs to come up with our next round of priorities.
<manu> Ian: it certainly sounds like a useful exercise. Meanwhile, if you can introduce us, I'm happy to talk about how he could come to a couple of calls, and invite him, have a conversation with him, begin broader participation conversation.
padler: I'll see if we can get a
decision today, and use the call tomorrow if we have
access.
... the parties that are involved are diverse and so the scope
is really like an "industry view"
manu: Ok to wait until we have access to materials
<manu> scribe: manu
Ian: Quick update, we have both
management and IG support for announcing the charter to the
membership.
... I'm finalizing a few things - I've gotten some additional
feedback on the language, some of it is pending. If I can get
that, we can send out a slightly revised charter, we can reduce
the liklihood of review comments, thus will make the review
easier. We will announce charter on August 3rd, may be slightly
delayed, but not by much.
... if the proposed changes are slightly more than editorial, I
may double-check w/ a few people to see if they make sense,
then share with IG. If they are substantitive, we'll start the
review and get feedback through the review. We're trying to
optimize if we can.
... I'll have more information through the rest of the week,
and expect review to start by mid next week.
... We're going to do something we haven't done before -
organize a webinar for people that may become participants -
two times in september to help accomodate timezones. 30 minute
call to go over charter/scope and get questions. People that
are new to the work, meet new chairs
... I'll be inviting IG members
... Still working on new Chairs for the new group.
... Webinar is a new idea, would love for folks to attend from
the WPIG.
... We'll be doing a press release w/ member testimonials -
28th of September, working w/ Comm team on a draft press
release starting next week - circulating a first draft to
membership and marketing departments.
... We also hope to have companies involved doing their own
media outreach - stay tuned in september for that.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask if we can invite people from interested W3C groups to the webinars?
ShaneM: There are a lot of other W3C groups interested in this stuff - would the webinar be a good place for them to learn about this activity.
Ian: I'm wondering if there is a
distinction about making the AC understand what we're trying to
do vs. letting other WGs know what's going on (maybe the latter
should happen at TPAC)
... if you already know of some groups that are interested, let
me know, we should be thinking ahead to F2F Agenda.
ShaneM: Manu and I are briefing
HTML Accessibility Task Force.
... Record your webinars - the first one may be bad, the second
will be better - keep those around.
... It'll be useful to point people to the webinar.
<aylcw3c> Arie: need to hop on a call...cheers everyone~!
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to put a finer point on the question, is this for AC reps only?
AdrianHB: It sounds like you're saying that this is for AC reps, but if you want to invite others, they're welcome.
<Ian> FAQ -> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Web_Payments_WG_Charter_FAQ
Ian: So, the FAQ in all of this
is a valued support document for folks reviewing the charter -
it started with some notes from Adrian. I went through it,
Adrian has added more, Manu has put in comments, Arie as
well.
... Looks like Manu has some questions - Adrian had good Q/A
material in his responses - nice examples of specific payment
scenarios and how they illustrate the flow.
... That may help a lot to developers.
<Zakim> zkoch, you wanted to mention some high level things on FAQ
<Ian> zkoch: I think good from a high-level perspective. But it sort of comes off as solving all problems of the work.
zach: I looked and added some
things - from a high-level - as I read it, it sounds like we're
solving too many problems.
... I was thinking about this in the first phase of work -
wallets - payment instruments - when I read this and I see
users and merchants benefits... but how banks and payment
processors benefit, I see that it feels a bit grander than what
it is we're trying to tackle.
... There are two types of beneficiaries - more direct ones -
people that when they implement - it has an impact.
<Ian> zkoch: Direct beneficiaries: users, merchants, scheme providers
<Ian> ....indirect beneficiaries: banks, regulators, ....
<Ian> ...those are not the core focus of our work.
zach: those seem like two big ones to me - some of the other groups - regulators / government - I can see how they may benefit in a secondary way - but any benefits that they receive will be secondary.
Ian: I agree, interested in where you drew the line - pausing on where you drew the line. I would love to hear from others - users/merchants/payment scheme operators are primary beneficiaries.
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask about payment processors
Ian: We can reorg the marketing language to make it clearer that more needs to happen to help the secondary beneficiaries.
<zkoch> +1 to Ian’s suggestion
AdrianHB: I was going to respond to Zach, then add a note - agree with Zach, some of the benefits are indirect. It makes it seem like scope is larger than we intend, but those benefits will be realized. In relation to payment processors, I think they'll more directly benefit. For Stripe, PayPal, this work is quite important to them.
<Ian> AdrianHB: I think this work is important to payment processing companies as well.
<Ian> AdrianHB: Small merchants hand off integration of payment processing to payment processors
AdrianHB: If this plays out the
way we think, small providers integration into payment services
is their hand-off - woot commerce or some shopping card plugin
- built-in integration to payment processor, it'll be invisible
to merchant, but important to payment processor to do
that.
... The way the pipeline looks is very different depending on
the size of business - shopping on a tier 1 merchant store -
your checkout flow is tightly controlled - Etsy, Shopfiy -
that's driven by payment processor, their implementation of our
standard could be a differentiator for them
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to weigh in.
<Ian> manu: Agree with Zach and Adrian ... we don't want to seem as though we are overreaching
<Ian> ...maybe we have a section "what do we think the secondary implications of this work will be?"
<Ian> ...move the indirect bits there.
<zkoch> Agreed with breaking into two sections
<Ian> Shane: I don't mind saying these things, ok to bifurcate
<Ian> ...but it's ok that we are overreaching
<Ian> Manu: We are talking about building this into the core of the Web, so we are striving to reach..and will have more reach than other orgs have
<Ian> ...but I agree that we don't want to give people the sense that we are biting off so much we are likely to fail
<Ian> zkoch: There are plenty of examples of failed efforts to improve payments.
<Ian> ..>I think it's important to emphasize that we can accomplish the small piece that we are seeking to standardize
<Ian> [IJ agrees]
Manu agrees as well.
<Zakim> padler, you wanted to discuss how to reflect multiple streams in FAQ
<AdrianHB> +1 for some reference from the FAQ to the roadmap (if not already there)
<Ian> (FAQ question 1 links to roadmap)
Ian: We do have a pointer to the Roadmap
<Ian> (We look at "What will be the focus of the Payments Working Group?")
<Ian> Manu: My understanding of flow is:
<Ian> - payment init. request is payee->payer
<Ian> - that message is forwarded to a payment processor (for push) and sends back completion request to payer's wallet, and then is forwarded back to the payee
<Ian> ...so there are two things in there that don't sound familiar to me.
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss flow
<Ian> AdrianHB: That text is correct, but what's important is to understand the level of abstract that text is out. What is in the four bullets is reflected in the diagram below. The reason it talks about 2 pairs is that there are 2 scenarios
<Ian> AdrianHB: The value is that you can use the same flow for a debit pull...
<Ian> ...it's a highly abstract flow that supports all the use cases we are trying to support
<Ian> ...what I've tried to do is think through them and see whether we could use a common format
<Zakim> padler, you wanted to ask a question about coupling of steps and perceptions implied by single diagram
<Ian> ...to me it appears that we can...of course, in the WG we may discover different flows are necessary for different scenarios
<Ian> padler: Perhaps the reaction I had to the diagram and to the flow descriptoin
<Ian> ...the diagram seems to imply that there's a single flow
<Ian> ...it could be that a single diagram may not be the way to say we can combine different flows in different ways
<Ian> ...we need to either change the text or to label the diagram
<Ian> AdrianHB: It already aligns with the text.
<Ian> ...I do have some sequence diagrams (from conversations with Mountie)
<Ian> ..what I'll do is see if we can put the sequence diagrams in there as well with the examples to see if that clarifies further
<zkoch> Longer seems right, but overly complex doesn’t really. FAQs exist to simplify ideas, right?
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond that the flow is too high level and to say we're abstracting too much.
<Ian> (Yes, zkoch. Proposals to simplify (even if not shortening) welcome!)
<Ian> manu: The fact that AdrianHB had to explain suggests we need to adjust the text.
<Ian> ..we may be abstracting so much that it's hard for someone to understand how to implement.
<zkoch> What if we just take out the enumerated bullet items and just rely on the diagram?
<padler> +1
<Ryladog> +1
Ian: I think there needs to be successive elaboration - if we just give a diagram, that won't be effective for most people.
<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to make a final comment on that bulleted list
<Ian> AdrianHB: We've explicitly said that we are not standardizing messages to payment processors.
<Ian> ...I do think the list should be there..the reason it's there is not the same reason for the flow diagram
<Ian> zkoch: I read the text and wondered why "user agent" didn't appear.
<Ian> AdrianHB: I'll work with Ian on this.
<Zakim> zkoch, you wanted to ask one final logistical question for Ian and Adrian on FAQ
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 Scribe: manu Inferring ScribeNick: manu Scribes: Ian, manu ScribeNicks: Ian, manu Present: MattC Manu Ian AdrianHB Arie Jia Zach Pat ShaneM Katie Haritos-Shea Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jul/0230.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 30 Jul 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/30-wpay-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]