<CyrilV> * I am connected but I hear nobody

<scribe> scribe: manu

next steps ecommerce

<Ian> DavidE invitation -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0012.html

Ian: David isn't here to talk about next steps for ecommerce, we'll hold off on that.
... He is scheduling a call and I have the feeling that he may not have been ready to talk about a plan on today's call.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say there is a rough plan.

<Ian> Manu: There is indeed a rough plan

<Ian> ...in his email he raised some interesting points

<Ian> ...I think from Conexxus conversations I am feeling good about direction of this stakeholder group

<Ian> ...meeting likely 9am ET on 4 Sep

<Ian> (IJ regrets)

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/StakeholderPriorities

Ian: Maybe Manu, you can help ensure that the ecommerce stuff ends up on that wiki.
... There is a link to the minutes for the telcos - haven't summarized yet, should reach out to Natasha.

Strategic agenda for TPAC

Ian: We now have 6-7 people that have volunteered to plan content for the face-to-face - still looking for more people - still some more topics - like capabilities.
... I'd like to create a strategic agenda - potential topics so that we have a narrative to follow at F2F.
... If we look at our charter...

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/2014/04/payments/webpayments_charter.html

Ian: It's a good place to ground ourselves in what we're trying to do - haven't done this exercise yet - one way to think about the agenda is - existentially - what is it that we need to be doing.
... We're supposed to have a vision for web payments, greater update, coming back to the job of the IG - reaching out to people - communicating - getting participation.
... If we can frame the meeting that way - it may help us make sense of the topcis - make sure we have a sense of direction - same page - same view of where things are headed by end of TPAC 2015.

manu: +1 - sounds like a good plan.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to raise the "support WG w/ deployment".

<AdrianHB> +1

<Ian> Manu: we had discussed deployment at some point

<Ian> ...what success will look like for V1

<Ian> ...but we don't have anything on the agenda yet on IG support of deployment

<Ian> ..the WG will be busy...the WG may not have time to "go get orgs to implement"

<Ian> ...we do need commitments from orgs re: pilots, etc.

<Ian> ...going back to what the IG should be doing, I think "ensuring success of phase 1"

Ian: One quick comment I have - recast your comment - I think we want implementers at the table - we shouldn't be talking to implementers because they should already be at the table. Don't know how far our role goes - WG should deal w/ it's test suite needs - opening the meeting w/ "what are the IGs goals" - with a proposal to start - frame the meeting w/ that
... one observation - we created a bunch of task forces - and they're not really relevant anymore (or they are inactive) - we should reset them to align w/ a fresh set of goals.
... We should end w/ a plan - opening the meeting w/ shared set of goals and stick to those might help a lot.
... The goal of ensuring phase 1 sounds like one of those goals.
... I haven't stepped up to do a session yet - rather, have other people find their passion and speak to it.

<Ian> Manu: I'm not seeing movement on hardware security.

<Ian> ...would be good to get an update4

<Ian> ACTION: Ian to talk with W3C staff about getting a security update at the FTF meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/03-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Talk with w3c staff about getting a security update at the ftf meeting [on Ian Jacobs - due 2015-09-10].

<AdrianHB> +1 on hw security (it came up from a bank I spoke with yesterday)

<AdrianHB> ... with Ian

<Ian> Manu: I think ISO20022 discussion on the mailing list is really interesting and appreciated Adrian's response. I think there's a discussion to be had there.

<Ian> Manu: I think ISO work will have an impact on vocabulary work of the WPWG in v 1.0

<AdrianHB> +1

<AdrianHB> (It could, but it should definitely be considered even if it doesn't ultimately)

Ian: Maybe we should have a discussion on how ISO20022 impacts phase 1 at the F2F - having someone that read the charter and is involved in the work is good.

<Ian> Ian: I will follow up with Kris / Vincent about TPAC

Manu: It would be good to align w/ ISO20022 where we can - and I think that there are a number of places we could and should align (personal opinion).

<AdrianHB> +1 that having anyone with ISO20022 knowledge (esp SWIFT who maintain it) would be hugely valuable as the vocab SHOULD align with existing standards

Capabilities

Ian: This is an important deliverable -

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html#identity-and-credentials-1

<Ian> Manu: I have updated the identity and credentials section

<Ian> ...it also helped me see how to write the document

<Ian> ...I think the exercise we went through (Ian notes: Manu primarily),

<Ian> ...it's really important to:

<Ian> a) introduce the topic

<Ian> b) State the goals

<Ian> c) State the capabilities we believe necessary to achieve the goals

<Ian> ...I think that's a helpful organization of the information

<Ian> ...I think we should remove "key concepts" ... I think those are actually the goals

<Ian> ...also, I made sure that the capabilities section for identity and credentials has entries for each item

<Ian> ...I feel that if we follow that pattern for most of the sections, then it feels like a good way to introduce our thinking to WG and other parties

Ian: I'll have a look - your characterization of introducing the topic, stating goals, then listing capabilities sounds good.
... In some cases, we may find that we want to list, tentatively, the things we think will help us reach the goal - even if it isn't a detailed gap analysis, there is still material there to show awareness of the ecosystem.
... The blog post that you did had another layer - here's what I think we need - look at existing technologies - at the end we can determine if there are gaps. You did a form of gap analysis, I don't think the document should do a gap analysis.
... Basically, fodder for a gap analysis... it helps people understand, at a technical level, what we're talking about. or it demonstrates that we know what we're talking about.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to follow up on Ian's comment.

Ian: it might be an interesting exercise to point to related work (I say that in the abstract)

<Ian> Manu: +1

<Ian> Manu: We shouldn't ourselves do the gap analysis here (Ian agrees).

<Ian> ..but pointers to "related specs" is useful

<Ian> Minor comments

<Ian> s/suggested deliverabes/candidate deliverables/

Ian: yes, agreed that "Related Specifications" is important.

<Ian> d/responsible WGs or standards bodies

Ian: I would delete the "responsible parties"
... I would change "Suggested Deliverables" to "Candidate Deliverables" or something less strong.
... I don't think "Responsible WGs" belong here.
... I don't care about "who" in this document - I care about "what"
... It feels as if it's going too far to say "here are the concrete groups that will work on this"

Manu: It wasn't meant as a "concrete groups that will work on this" - it was meant as a "we're thinking about these groups being relevant"

Ian: I think we can keep related specifications (with groups), and that expresses that
... So, the "Responsible WGs" is redundant w/ info above, or it's premature.

Manu: Ok, will change it.

Ian: I have to get Pat on the phone and see how we're going to get this document done before TPAC.

Update on stakeholder meetings

<Ian> Manu: Do we have enough time?

Ian: Quick summary - banks have met once, and are meeting again Tuesday the 8th - don't know if the next meeting is planned.
... The ecommerce one is having a meeting as early as tomorrow - assuming they'll need to meet multiple times... will continue to work w/ David on that.
... I'm chatting w/ Alibaba folks and Amy Zirkle - proposed a time, but am waiting to hear from Nick to see if he's available - 9am on 11th of September.
... That's when we'll dig in to the PSP stuff a bit more - the ones that have momentum - they'll be fine - everyone needs to be on it. Not nervous about them getting done by Oct.
... We may want to have a template - that's the current status.

E-commerce Plans

dezell: I saw some of the minutes - I think Ian covered some of the topic - for ecommerce, there are several facets that I'm covering - looking for your feedback.
... I have setup a stakeholders meeting doodle poll - the people that have registered so far - we don't have that many of the merchant folks, so I'm leaving that out there during the afternoon to decide when people can come.
... That meeting is sort of open ended.
... We've bound commerce to merchant and retailers - that's sensible - mainly because, most of mobile apps are driven by ecommerce topic - those applications, if anyone is willing to have one developed, they want a loyalty program.
... That may be true in general - merchants are driving these programs - you can see what I've put on there - there's a matrix of concerns - some programs are driven by various entities.
... That's the basis of it - trying to get this meeting setup - probably be more than one - also, prepare for a presentation at the W3C Digital Marketing workshop in Tampa.
... I'm going there wearing both NACS and Web Payments hats.
... I personally believe there is a lot of digital marketing, while it may not belong in WPIG, we have a strong interest.
... That's one of the things I'm using to drive this - meeting I'm setting up - trying to prepare for the workshop. I've had a long conversation w/ folks in NACS - various workshop presentations - Gray Taylor gave one at the NACS show - all applicable.
... I have not been able to contact Joerg - he's on vacation until Sept. 18th - out of pocket for now.
... Are we conflating two different topics - have merchants and retailers stakeholders - on the other, I have what we're presenting at face-to-face - ecommerce aspects of payments. In my mind, those two things are very close together. Trying to make sure stakeholder meetings aren't self-selecting.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide feedback.

<Ian> Manu: +1 to the approach

<Ian> ...I'm wondering why there is not as much merchant participation as we'd like

<Ian> Manu: Can we reach into NACS community?

<Ian> (BIG +1 to having questions for NACS members to answer)

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk about merchants behind their backs.

dezell: We had a discussion about this at the NACS strategy conference - I'll have slides from Jenny Bullard (Flash Foods) - so will be able to share that. I've also may have some input from Coca Cola - if they come to the Digital Marketing workshop, we should be able to pick their brain.
... So, we have some people that do digital marketing, but not web technology - I have to follow up w/ Jeff Tatner at Coca Cola on digital marketing.

Ian: I valued the guest participation at our previous meeting - newly arrived folks - I think we should use our next face-to-face as an opportunity to introduce new people - if there are people willing to go to Japan - we should see if we're willing to find someone interested in participating in the work.

dezell: These folks have the budget, but not the expertise in the technology areas.
... merchants are very much reactionary - it's just the nature of the industry - but it seems to be a global phenomenon in merchants and retailers.

Manu: When will you call the meeting?

dezell: Mid-afternoon today, most likely.

Ian: That may not be enough notice.

dezell: I'll try to send the meeting invite out noon, then.

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/+present/present+/
FAILED: s/suggested deliverabes/candidate deliverables/
Succeeded: s/do it at/send the meeting invite out/
Found Scribe: manu
Inferring ScribeNick: manu
Present: CyrilV MattC Ian Manu Matt AdrianHB DavidE
Regrets: Pat
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0007.html
Got date from IRC log name: 03 Sep 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/03-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: ian