<Nitin> need dialin info... as I am rejoining the group after a while...:)

<Nitin> Many - Thanks

<Ian> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0135.html

Quick update on AC review

<scribe> scribe: manu

Ian: We are making progress on reviewers, closing the loop with most of them, hoping that by the 12th of October call, at the latest, we'll have an Agenda item to review the changes.
... It could be as soon as monday, but don't hope for that.
... We may be able to look at them by the 8th on this call, then we can go back to full IG on the 12th.
... You can look at editors draft of charter here:

<Ian> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/charters/payments-wg-charter.html

Ian: did a round of revisions, got comments back from Richard Barnes.

<Ian> Manu: Have formal objections been addressed?

Ian: Can't say definitively, we need to ask the objectors if they are satisfied, don't know if they'll conflict w/ other peoples objections, I'm quite optimistic that we'll be able to resolve them.
... Most of the Formal Objections had to do with precision in the charter, and we've been sharing those edits w/ the objectors.

Draft FTF meeting agenda

Ian: Next up, draft face-to-face meeting agenda.

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015#Detailed

Ian: We'll start w/ IG and then we'll talk about WG.
... At a high-level, the goal is to review the strategic plan of the IG.
... If we can reach consensus on next standardization priority, the group has multiple functions within W3C - conveying requirements, reviewing specs from other groups, proposing new standards work in the form of draft charters, the flow of the meeting is to step back at the beginning and say what our charter says - we're doing some of it but not all of it.
... Where should we be investing our resources - we have Task Forces, but some of them aren't aligned w/ what we're doing right now - so open w/ an overall "what we're doing".
... Put stakes in the ground on what we think is important.
... There are some additional topics that are functional topics. Manu is conducting a survey about verifiable attributes / credentials use cases - want to check in on that.
... Adrian has said there will be an IoV presentation.

<Nitin> I can help as I am working wiht A few automotive companies -- the innovation group

Ian: On Monday at the call - we'll have better info for full IG.

<Ian> Nitin: I can help with automotive work...and IOV

Nitin: I can help come up with automotive companies - in addition to IoV.
... In about a few weeks, I can share some other use cases.

Ian: Are you involved in the Automotive WG directly?

Nitin: Nope, work for IBM, working w/ them for innovation platform. We're formulating strategies around IoT and payments.

Ian: Maybe what I'll do is introduce you with Paul Boise (sp?) - what we don't have yet is anyone signed up - if he would be willing to lead the session. I believe he said yes, you're interested - you could work with him on organizing the session.

Nitin: Manu sent something on card, ISO20022, Bitcoin - from IoT perspective - blockchain, for them to be able to amalgamate the two - is this part of automotive or payments?

Ian: This call is not a good call to answer that question - this call is a good call to raise that question. That's what the face-to-face should give us an opportunity to look at both sides of the equation.
... You and Paul could put forward some of the use cases - we can have a joint discussion on it.

<padler> +1 to more time for verifiable assets

<Ian> Manu: Agenda looks good (no surprise). I'd like more time for verifiable attributes, especially if the use cases demonstrate there is something to do here.

<Ian> ...I don't see a lot of leeway in the agenda.

Ian: I would like to see the data first for verifiable attributes before giving it more time. Allocation was done based on that uncertainty. How much data are we getting.
... Yes, I totally agree and am concerned about lack of open space in the agenda. David reminded me that there is an accessibility task force right now that we need to also put in there.
... I only had an opportunity to put down 30 minutes for that one - request for automotive - 90 minutes that became necessary to allocate to other topics.
... Maybe Cyril and Arie could join their presentations?

<dezell> +1 to attempting to fold 4-corners into bank.

Ian: It's up to Cyril to do that. Maybe we could start meetings earlier.

<dezell> +1 to starting early and staying late!

<CyrilV> +1 to h:30

<CyrilV> +1 to 8:30

Pat: We should talk a bit more about capabilities - commerce, identity, security, automotive, IoT - we haven't specifically talked about that yet.

<Nitin> OK...cool

dezell: A quick question - we didn't touch on this the other day - starting early and ending later - surprised that we didn't notice that the other day. We should give ourselves a little bit of room. Any hope of some of these topics being more applicable to the WG discussions? We could shift some of that discussion there.

Ian: I don't think we can move any of these discussions to the WG

shepazu: Given the nature of TPAC, which is where multiple groups are there together, we can have a face-to-face another time - it might be in the best interest of the group to prioritize meetings w/ other groups.
... Maybe even to the point of having serendipitous meetings w/ groups. If the agenda is packed, no one is going to be served well - I can almost guarantee that any topic, people will be frustrated at shortness of discussion. If it's really this packed, we may want to defer items to another face-to-face.

Ian: Quick note on Agenda building - looked at groups that were registered for TPAC - which ones we thought we'd have most affinity to meet with, for IG, there weren't really any. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be any, but initial pass - for example, security, asking Wendy to come and give us an update. More affinity on Thu/Fri - other reasons to be connecting more with people. For the WG meeting, there is a desire to talk w/ Philippe on API design.
... out of the blue, automotive contacted us - would favor meeting w/ them. That's about leveraging TPAC - share the concern - worth looking at Agenda being so packed.
... We could reduce all stakeholder conversations by 15 minutes.

<ShaneM> Note that all the other groups at TPAC are usually fully booked too.,

dezell: To Doug's point, we want them to hear from us. They need to be in on the important conversations too.
... I'm completely in favor of shortening all of these things by 15 minutes, then possibly having more discussion on day 2.

Ian: Another way to manage that is to simply end the particular stakeholder discussion when it ends naturally.
... Maybe we want to be less formal - when it's ready to stop, we can move on - extend 5 minutes, move on - do it on the fly.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that discussion in a room full of 40+ people goes on pretty long.

<Ian> Manu: 40 people in a room can be a lot of conversation

<Ian> -1 to letting the conversation end naturally

<Ian> ...another way to do this is structure as lightning talks

<Ian> ....15 minutes per talk

<Ian> ...then people vote on what they want to hear more about or have more discussion about

<Ian> [IJ fears that's a long time without talking]

<Ian> ..if some of these discussions are better left to the IG calls

<Ian> ...use TPAC to gauge interest and then do deep dives after TPAC

Ian: My expectation is that after the meeting, we'd have fewer things to discuss - we may want to focus on X, Y, and Z after the meeting.
... There would be deeper dives on fewer things after TPAC.
... We have 1.5 hours set aside to say what's most important - what are we going to focus on - diving deeper after TPAC into fewer things is also my view. TPAC has to have enough space to hash out what those things are. I don't see the model as after TPAC we go deeper into everyone's topic.
... We should go into the things we see as more important.

dezell: I'm in favor of potentially getting all of these topics a very structured length of time - help keep people from feeling shorted, we should have time limits. The logistics of that, we can work out in the next day or two. Before I leave - encourage discussion of WG in general.

Ian: I'll try to create more unallocated space. I expect that we can get back an hour - I will update the thing in place - I'm reluctant to shorten the conversations for the reasons you folks cited - lots of people, need to make sure we're disciplined - give people a chance to speak.
... Feel like we have to allow enough time so that we get to a point where people are saying things that other people care about. We won't have shared viewpoint at face-to-face meeting in April. We won't know what's collectively being focused on.

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015#Detailed_2

Web Payments Working Group Meeting Agenda

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015#Detailed_2

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2015/

Ian: We have now told people that we will be meeting

<ShaneM> Note that I will be doing double duty those days because of PFWG

Ian: We have great registration for IG meeting - for WG meeting, we only have 7 people that have officially registered, I expect more to be there, be sure to do that.
... The main topics that we've been keeping in the notes, knowledge transfer, joint meetings, what other groups at TPAC might we wish to meet with to discuss, to do outreach yet.
... Notes - new WG topics - would be good for test suite development, reached out to Alex Russel and TAG on API design. Forms of input to WG to consider.
... If anyone is interested in recounting experiences, should IG meet only one day - etc.

<Ian> Manu: Two things

<Ian> 1) On Weds, are we planning on doing a 10K overview of the payments work ?

Ian: There will be an AC meeting agenda topic on Web Payments.

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2015/SessionIdeas

<Ian> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2015/SessionIdeas#Web_Payments_Architecture

<Ian> 2) WG discussion

Ian: Some people may be around on Wed - maybe we could get more developer types to talk about architecture - contribute their thoughts earlier on even if they can't get to first WG meeting. Summary answer, for purposes of getting members involved, even if all AC reps can't make meeting.

<ShaneM> I updated my TPAC questionnaire answers to indicate I will be at this meeting.

<Ian> Manu: there are topics I know we will need to discuss

<Ian> ...eg. extensibility

<Ian> ...javascript, REST

<Ian> ...these might take up a lot of time

<Ian> ...I see these discussions as inevitable

<Ian> ...or should the first meeting focus be getting up to speed

Ian: I feel like some getting up to speed is inevitable, also, a lot of this stuff that's operational could be postponed.
... It may end up, depending on who is in the room, what people want to discuss. I'm reluctant to over-constrain the meeting.
... it's worthwhile noting the technical topics that are likely to demand attention, extensibility, messages vs. API vs. both,
... Feel free to go in and call out the ones that demand attention, don't know how deeply we'll get into those topics during the first meeting.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about "chairs"

Ian: Challenges on the table - we should discuss those.
... We announced Adrian as the second co-chair - membership as part of charter proposal - there is one ongoing discussion for a third co-chair.

<VincentK> Kris: Please ask if the WG is going to discuss the payments flows/scenarios that i have seen flying around.

Kris: Is the discussion around flow in the purview of the WG?

Ian: I'm adding message flows to topics that will demand attention. Don't have particular technical topics in mind, but I'm hearing a number of items.
... I have not spoken w/ the chairs - had them look at Agenda - detailed allocation - start conversation tomorrow.
... So that we will have more clarity in a week or so, thank you for all of that input - feel free to take notes in the wiki - next agenda item is on capabilities.

Capabilities Discussion

<Ian> https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/capabilities/index.html#overview-of-capabilities

Ian: Pat and I discussed yesterday, document hasn't moved a lot - have input from Manu - but there have been other people that took action items, if we were to check in right now - they're not done.

<kketels> OK I got IRC working...the discussion on the workflows is key to the success. My understanding was this was one of the main remits of the WG, not the IG.

<Ian> 14:30-15:00: Capabilities Strategic Reset (Pat Adler)

<Ian> Now that the Working Group is up and running, how does the IG capture and communicate the aggregate of work going on to bring payment capabilities to the Web? We will revisit the high-level goals for this work and come up with a strategy to make progress.

Ian: We need to check in on actions in general - will do so after this call - capabilities is a bit stuck - one approach that Pat and I talked about - at face-to-face, put item on agenda that is written this way -^^^

manu: Kris - yes, you are right - it's the main remit of the WG (flow discussion) and yes, it's key to success - so your read on the situation is correct.

Pat: Where we may have wanted to back up from, key is to make sure broader group is supportive of what we're trying to do with the document.
... represent that in a way to glue that together - key principle - looking at use cases in commercial space - did not introduce standards that are incompatible with other payment standards related to identity / P2P payments / etc. Intent of document. Approach is to not try and cram alot into it before TPAC, but revisit how we're going to achieve intent of document.
... Keeping track of composite concerns, the stuff between WGs.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to point out what he thinks the problem is...

<Ian> Manu: Major issue IMO is people don't have time

<Nitin> also with the speed at which payment ecosystem is evolving, are we keeping up with the evolution in this capability doc

<Nitin> I mean in my client conversation - are above and beyiond the identity/interaction but more towards a end use - secure engagment --- we should focus on the end user experience

<Nitin> IMHO

Manu: Nitin, agreed - that's what we're trying to do, AFAIK.

Ian: I was hoping capabilities could be used for knowledge transfer to WG - I'm okay to postpone deeper discussion until face-to-face meeting - what's realistic - what can we do to make progress.

Pat: One of the things that might be helpful - we have had a bunch of new people join the group - we have also been able to engage in stakeholder forums - reboot it at TPAC is a good idea. Will give people that haven't seen it a chance to catch up.
... Chunk up sections at a time - structure the work a bit differently - there are things we could do differently as well - based on schedules - document won't change much between now and then. Emphasize principles - key domains - what they are and why they are like that.

Ian: The discussion may alter the shape of the capabilities document - beyond people being busy - are we really doing the most important thing that we should be doing? Meeting should help with that.

<Nitin> I need to drop...but great to be back ! Thanks

<Ian> Manu: I think not focusing on capabilities has created an issue (mismatch between identity and payments)

<Ian> ...some people in the group feel we have a blind spot

<Ian> ...and we haven't seen it due to capabilities not being where it should be.

Ian: Yes, likely that not having shared picture is hindering us.

<padler> also having anxiety that we will wind up with multiple trains running indifferent directions...

manu: +1 - yes, not saying you weren't saying it wasn't important - but we can point to something to demonstrate /why/ it's important.

<Ian> rrasgent, make minutes

<padler> thanks all! :)

<Ian> rrasgent, make minutes

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: manu
Inferring ScribeNick: manu
Present: Ian Vincent Kuntz CyrilV Cyril padler Evgeny Nitin Doug David Manu Ezell (in part) ShaneM
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0135.html

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

Got date from IRC log name: 01 Oct 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/01-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: