<scribe> scribe: dezell

<scribe> scribenick: dezell

<Ian> scribe: Ian

FTF meeting

FTF meeting page -> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015#Flow_Notes

<collier-matthew> Ian: I wanted to go over the flow of the meeting.

<collier-matthew> ... there was discussion last Thurs about a strategic agenda.

<collier-matthew> ... I can see a flow emerging where we set a high level strategic direction early in the meeting.

<collier-matthew> ... This will help prioritize topics.

<collier-matthew> ... We could open with a strategic discussion.

<dezell> +1 to some give and take.

<collier-matthew> ... We will hear from stakeholders and functional topics.

<collier-matthew> ... Once we have those things on the table, we can sift through them and prioritize.

<collier-matthew> ... I want to hear if people think this is an OK approach.

<collier-matthew> ... The meeting is coming soon, so it would be good to start assigning time slots for the meeting.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about functional topics.

<Erik> +1 Ian

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to express support

Manu: When we pointed people to the work Ian did on "how we are doing" there was general agreement that this was a good exercise and the flow is the right direction
... I didn't hear pushback
... on functional topics
... are we going to talk about those before we get to pac?
... specifically identity and credentials

<collier-matthew> Ian: that's a good questions.

<collier-matthew> ... first the other ones. I've been talking with Adrian about internet of value.

<collier-matthew> ... Adrian has an outline of his presentation.

<collier-matthew> ... The ISO proposal is in progress.

<collier-matthew> ... Wendy is working on Security.

<collier-matthew> ... I don't know what to do about verifiable attributes for payments on the web.

<collier-matthew> ... I've been chatting with a variety of people trying to find topics of interests.

<collier-matthew> ... I don't know how to direct the conversation.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to provide feedback if required on IoV presentation

dezell: Regarding flow, +1

AdrianHB: IOV discussion will be about a technical approach described in a white paper on ledger access
... I will try to have some sort of draft by TPAC to use as a basis for what standards we can discuss.
... so my draft TPAC presentation is to review the white paper, list potential standards, and then discuss
... in parallel to that I am looking to launch a CG on IOV (in advance of TPAC); we discussed this at our June meeting.
... we're delaying the launch of the CG in order to launch it with something to show (white paper, code)
... I've got a draft charter that I'll send to the group.
... the plan is to launch the CG in the next few weeks
... that should give us a few weeks to look at things before TPAC>

Manu: On identity/credentials...here's my concern: the back-burner again
... I don't think we need a discussion like we had at the last FTF meeting.
... am concerned about back-burner status

<Ryladog> +1 to Manu's comment here

Manu: also concerned comparing IOV (that has no spec and no community) and Credentials (which does)

<Erik> +1 Manu

<collier-matthew> Ian: I think it's a two edged sword that there's an existing community with existing work.

<collier-matthew> ... fairly or unfairly, some people have looked at that work and are not supportive of it.

<collier-matthew> ... IoV does not have that issue.

<Erik> +1 to Manu, -1 Ian with my Chair hat on. Its 100% being put onto the back burner.

<collier-matthew> ... I have been looking to individuals trying to understand use cases from W3C members and non-members to understand the landscape.

<collier-matthew> ... It's a flawed process in that's it's just me working on it.

<collier-matthew> ... I am trying to make progress. It's not clear to me from my conversations what we should bring to TPAC.

<collier-matthew> ... having the use cases articulated by the broadest number of members would help inform the conversation.

<collier-matthew> ... one of the challenges is that Manu is very effective at aggregating the use case stories, but it would be helpful to hear directly from those people.

<collier-matthew> ... then we could look through those use cases and prioritize them.

<collier-matthew> ... the identity space seems quite thorny.

<collier-matthew> ... If we can narrrow the space through use cases, it would be helpful.

<collier-matthew> ... I am trying advance the use cases and work through some of the internal challenges.

<manu> +1 to stakeholder meeting.

dezell: I want to set up a meeting outside of the weekly IG to discuss credentials.

<manu> on credentials / identity.

<AdrianHB> +1 to stakeholder meeting

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that those "some people" should come and discuss it in the open. and to state that we've already documented use cases in the CG... but we're gathering even

Manu: Would like these discussions more transparently; we've got use cases from the CG)
... problem here is that we've been doing this for 6 months
... I"m hearing 2 actionable items:

a) Get Members (and member reps) to submit use cases

b) Having a preparatory meeting around credentials (not about broader identity problem)

manu: We didn't need to do this amount of work to get payments off the ground.

Ryladog: What is impact of non-support of work?
... we should not be ignoring this
... I don't think we are trying to solve over-general problems

ach erik

erik: +1 this should be a topic of conversation. We need to distinguish identity from credentials; and discuss them both.
... We need to see the charters

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to ask if IoV is a stakeholder topic?

<collier-matthew> Ian: I like manu's formulation of getting use cases and having a meeting, I'm happy to participate in that.

<collier-matthew> ... one of the things I got from reading the use cases...

<collier-matthew> ... there's a set of use cases around authentication where I am telling someone who manages the account that I am the one authorized to access the account.

<collier-matthew> ... or I would like to prove some like my age or that I have a license of some sort.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to Ian about two categorizations of use cases "authentication" vs. "independent verification"

<collier-matthew> Ian: another way to say it is there are uses cases around authentication.

<collier-matthew> ... what I'm hearing is that there are people who manage accounts that are less motivated by the broader use cases.

<collier-matthew> ... is that a fair characterization?

<AdrianHB> +1 - talking about "identity" in the aggregate is a major problem

padler: Identity creates noise when talked about in the abstract. So we need to be specific. I agree that identity is fundamental, and w3c could help in getting banks and payment providers who rely on identity to the table
... There's a big difference between the open web (everyone has access to everything) and commercial apps (for which identity is a cornerstone)
... so I think we should focus on requirements as input to the group

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to state that we have a Credentials phase I plan (to avoid talking about it in the aggregate) - we just haven't been able to present it.

Manu: We have a credentials phase 1 plan proposal (from the CG)
... Still abstract to people in the IG and people outside the CG

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask about credentials use cases and payments focus

AdrianHB: What was the trigger to hold the workshop? What is necessary for w3c to treat identity and credentials as first class topic?

<padler> It is concerning that we have to 'work around' the topic... my comments were intended to convey that we should be able to highlight the challenge, and resolve the conflict of terminology/views so that we openly collaborate on Identity related topics

AdrianHB: I think that the credentials use cases are good

http://www.w3.org/2003/08/Workshops/archive

<collier-matthew> Ian: First, we have had identity workshops at W3C

<collier-matthew> ... there was one hosted by Mozilla.

<collier-matthew> ... one action out of that workshop was they said the first thing we need is Crypto.

<collier-matthew> ... Which resulted in web crypto being included in browsers.

<collier-matthew> ... AdrianHB, you asked about what prompted the payments coming about.

<collier-matthew> ... there was build up in the mobile space.

<collier-matthew> ... We sort of need to stick to our charter in the WPIG

<collier-matthew> ... the comparison to IoV is not good.

<collier-matthew> ... trying to find people who are attracted to working on intractable problems is difficult.

<collier-matthew> ... We are trying to get broader consensus.

<collier-matthew> ... my project has been to try and navigate the space. It's not the same problem as IoV

manu: It would be interesting to talk about how the IG was created...I also think we should get to the rest of our agenda today

<dezell> comment: sometimes "separation of concerns" is an essential strategy to get to a topic.

manu: perhaps we can put this (credential) on future agenda

<AdrianHB> +1 for a dedicated call on this topic this week if we can

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to "what is needed" - because he was there for formation of Web Payments workshop. and to say that "payments" had a similar history as "identity"...

<scribe> ACTION: dezell to organize a credentials special call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/09/14-wpay-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-150 - Organize a credentials special call [on David Ezell - due 2015-09-21].

Strategic agenda

<collier-matthew> Ian: Thanks to those who discussed agenda last week.

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015_Strategy

<collier-matthew> ... I began thinking about sources of info about how we can determine if we're doing the right thing.

<collier-matthew> ... I though looking at the charter would be a good place to start.

<zkoch> manu great, thanks

<collier-matthew> ... Please see the wiki page.

<dezell> ======

<dezell> Stakeholders topics:

<dezell> * Customers - Accessibility

<dezell> * Merchants/Retailers

<dezell> * Banks

<dezell> * Mobile Operators

<dezell> Missing Stakeholders topics:

<dezell> * Payment System Vendors

<dezell> * Payment Service Providers (Wiki not updated)

<dezell> Functional Topics:

<dezell> * Strategy

<dezell> * Identifiable Attributes

<dezell> * Internet of Value

<dezell> * Leverage for ISO20022

<dezell> * W3C Security Activity Plans

<zkoch> thanks, will read!

<collier-matthew> Ian: A week before the meeting is acceptable.

Bringing proposals to the Web Payments Working Group

<dezell> https://web-payments.org/specs/source/web-payments-api/#detailed-payment-flow

(That's the CG work)

<collier-matthew> Ian: I did not have any concrete thoughts on how to formulate a proposal.

<collier-matthew> ... in general I'm hearing from AC reviews, there's a precedent to start working around existing proposals.

<collier-matthew> ... community groups are being used to start dev to dev conversations.

<collier-matthew> ... which is an opportunity to discuss ideas without having a working group.

<collier-matthew> ... where things have traction, move things into the working group space.

<collier-matthew> ... that's why we designed community groups.

<collier-matthew> ... we now have more than 6000 people in community groups.

<collier-matthew> ... it may in fact be a good place for feedback.

<collier-matthew> ... I think it's a good thing to have proposals as the working group starts.

<collier-matthew> ... I would not want to entertain proposals from people who will not be joining the working group.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that he feels like most of the W3C members he has talked to feel very uneasy starting on technical work w/o good proposals to start from.

(Manu reviewing his email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0053.html)

(and follow-up https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0055.html)

<collier-matthew> Ian: I seems like if we were to discuss this at TPAC it would be on the working group agenda.

<collier-matthew> ... it would be good reading for people who will be participating in that discussion.

<collier-matthew> ... Does that align with your expectations Manu?

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015#Working_Group_Agenda

Initial input to the WG

@@list links here

<collier-matthew> Ian: We are writing the agenda for the working group discussion.

<collier-matthew> ... we should be adding things to the working group agenda.

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: dezell
Inferring ScribeNick: dezell
Found ScribeNick: dezell
Found Scribe: Ian
Inferring ScribeNick: Ian
Scribes: dezell, Ian
ScribeNicks: dezell, Ian
Present: MattC Jiangtao dezell Zach CyrilV padler Manu Katie Haritos-Shea Ian AdrianHB yaso Erik nicktr amyz
Regrets: Nick S.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0058.html

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/14-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: dezell

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)