W3C

Web Payments Working Group

04 Feb 2016

Attendees

Present: Pat Adler, Zach Kock, Manu Sporny, Adrian Bateman, Ian Jacobs, Nick telford-Reed, Adrian Hope-Bailie, Matt Saxon, Vincent Kuntz, Dave Longley, Shane McCarron, Richard Barnes. Regrets: Doug Schepers.

Contents


[11:01] <dlehn> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m0eab1d01791556dc7bcc4350b8bb9220

[11:01] <manu> Present+ Manu

[11:01] * nicktr (~nick.telford-reed@team.cloak) has joined #wpwg

[11:01] <manu> Present+ DaveLehn

[11:01] <nicktr> present+nicktr

[11:01] <nicktr> present+ nicktr

[11:02] * zkoch (~zkoch@team.cloak) has joined #wpwg

[11:02] <Ian> present+

[11:02] * nicktr pulls on his tin hat and peers over the parapet

[11:02] <nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160204

[11:03] <Ian> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Feb/0099.html

[11:03] <Ian> Chair: Nick Telford-Reed

[11:03] <manu> Present+ Rouslan

[11:03] * Rouslan thanks manu

[11:03] * manu :)

[11:04] <zkoch> present+ zkoch

[11:04] <nicktr> present+ matts

[11:04] <manu> Present+ PatAdler

[11:04] * manu thought Matt was on vacation? :)

[11:05] * padler (~padler@team.cloak) has joined #wpwg

[11:05] * manu how mean :)

[11:05] <padler> present+ padler

[11:05] * kris_ (~kris@team.cloak) has joined #wpwg

[11:05] * kris_ (~kris@team.cloak) has left #wpwg

[11:05] <Ian> scribe: Ian

[11:05] <Ian> regrets: Doug

[11:05] <VincentK> present+ VincentK

[11:06] * kris_ (~kris@team.cloak) has joined #wpwg

[11:06] <Ian> topic: Working Group Process

[11:06] <Ian> Manu: I have a growing concern that the editors have not been communicating directly as much as desired.

[11:06] <Ian> ...not seeing as much input from Zach and AdrianB

[11:07] <Ian> ...yesterday we reached out to Zach and Rouslan to check in

[11:07] <Ian> ...a number of things came out of the call.

[11:07] <AdrianHB> Present+ AdrianHB

[11:07] <dlongley> present+ dlongley

[11:08] <Ian> ...the editors were able to share some concerns...and I believe we made significant progress on a call (more than via tracker)

[11:08] <Ian> ....we want to address the communication gap among the editors

[11:08] * ShaneM (~ahby@team.cloak) has joined #wpwg

[11:08] <rbarnes> who are "the editors"? the editors of what?

[11:08] <Ian> ...the editors have agreed to meet on an editor call

[11:08] <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM

[11:08] <AdrianHB> q+

[11:08] * Zakim sees nicktr, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:08] <Ian> (Editors means "the editors of the two respective proposals in the CGs")

[11:08] <dlongley> editors of the two browser API proposals

[11:09] <nicktr> q-

[11:09] * Zakim sees AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:09] <rbarnes> dlongley: thanks

[11:09] <rbarnes> 👍

[11:09] <Ian> Manu: Editors are not thrilled with github so far.

[11:09] <Ian> ...lots of traffic and points are being missed as a result

[11:10] <Ian> ...tougher to move forward on core architectural issues

[11:10] <Ian> ...some frustration also that core architectural issues are not bigger part of call agenda

[11:10] <Ian> ...flows are important but we need to make progress on big issues

[11:10] <Ian> ...need higher bandwidth communication among editors and implementers.

[11:10] * rbarnes reviewed the proposals last week, needs to send some thoughts on Core Architectural Issues to the list

[11:10] <Ian> ...some frustration as well at the ordering of issues that are being addressed

[11:11] <Ian> ...the proposals (e.g., state information) came across as "too aggressive" and not conducive to discussion

[11:12] <Ian> ...proposals are being written to engage editors/implementers but have in practice been driving a wedge between editors; so we need to fix that.

[11:12] <Ian> ...also we got a better understanding of the shipping address issue and so now Dave and I are largely supportive

[11:12] <dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Checkout-API

[11:12] <Ian> (Ian believes that is exactly the sort of conversation that should happen on the WG calls or in summary email)

[11:12] <dlongley> the proposal^

[11:13] <Ian> Manu: to summarize, I think that we would like to have time where editors discussion core architectural issues on the call

[11:13] <zkoch> q+ to chime in

[11:13] * Zakim sees AdrianHB, zkoch on the speaker queue

[11:13] <AdrianHB> q-

[11:13] <AdrianHB> q+

[11:13] * Zakim sees zkoch on the speaker queue

[11:13] * Zakim sees zkoch, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:13] <Ian> manu: Proposal is to have editor call every other week to work through issues.

[11:13] <dlongley> q+ to point out we determined that the aims of the APIs were slightly different (at different layers)

[11:13] * Zakim sees zkoch, AdrianHB, dlongley on the speaker queue

[11:13] <Ian> ..and write proposals for the group

[11:14] <Ian> ack zk

[11:14] <Zakim> zkoch, you wanted to chime in

[11:14] * Zakim sees AdrianHB, dlongley on the speaker queue

[11:14] <Ian> zkoch: We are making progress, and I think we've been making quite a bit of progress on the payment request API

[11:14] <Ian> ...the payments CG has been working on this for years; for payment request API we have been at this less time.

[11:15] <Ian> ...we are getting feedback from our teams with architectural experience

[11:15] <Ian> ...I agree we have not been super-engaged. It's largely a time question

[11:15] <Ian> ...I don't think it's the fault of github issue tracker. I think it's hard to do nuance in digital form. And that's why I wanted to use FTF meeting to discuss the architectural issues

[11:15] <Ian> ...I think we can categorize those issues in 2 broad groups:

[11:15] <Ian> 1) Things that are relatively minor and can be done on github issue tracker or pull request

[11:16] <Ian> ...e.g., how to build payment info...there are different approaches for these small level things

[11:16] <AdrianHB> +1

[11:16] <Ian> 2) Fundamental things like:

[11:16] <AdrianHB> - good example thread

[11:16] <Ian> a) Removing state

[11:16] <Ian> ...this affects a lot of other topics, e.g., shipping address

[11:16] <Ian> ...I want us to carve out time at FTF at whiteboard to hash out flows

[11:16] <rbarnes> +1 to using F2F for hashing out some arch stuff

[11:16] <Ian> ...hard to figure out subtlety online

[11:17] <Ian> (Right now 75% of meeting is for issue hashing)

[11:17] <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/WPWG-FTF-Feb-2016#Agenda

[11:17] <Ian> zkoch: I recommend pull requests. I also appreciate that we need to be engaging more and I will try to do so.

[11:17] dlehn dlongley

[11:17] <Ian> ack dlongley

[11:17] <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to point out we determined that the aims of the APIs were slightly different (at different layers)

[11:17] * Zakim sees AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:17] davidillsley dlehn dlongley dwim_

[11:17] dlehn dlongley

[11:18] <Ian> dlongley: One of the other things to come out of the call was that we have different aims

[11:18] <Ian> ...my own take is that the paymentRequestAPI is a higher-level API re: checkout

[11:18] <Ian> ...and that the CG spec was a narrower focus

[11:18] <Ian> ...payment methods and user choices.

[11:19] <Ian> ..that in its own is part of a higher-level checkout API

[11:19] <Ian> ...so the checkout API could use stuff in the CG spec as part of i

[11:19] <Ian> s/i/it

[11:19] <Ian> ...so I wrote up a proposal on how this might be done:

[11:19] <Ian> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Checkout-API

[11:19] <Ian> ..and this suggests a layered approach that may help make progress

[11:19] <manu> q+ to note that we didn't make this breakthrough on the github issue tracker, it required a phone call.

[11:19] * Zakim sees AdrianHB, manu on the speaker queue

[11:20] <manu> q+ to note that we only have a few face-to-face meetings.

[11:20] * Zakim sees AdrianHB, manu on the speaker queue

[11:20] <Ian> ack AdrianHB

[11:20] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:20] <nicktr> ack adrianba

[11:20] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:20] <Ian> adrianHB: There's been an extensive email exchange between chairs/team contacts/editors on this

[11:21] <Ian> ...some issues are bigger issues than those of WG agenda (e.g., how CGs work)

[11:21] <zkoch> Just a note, I don’t think we’re advocates of a layered approach, at least yet. We need to look into it dlongley’s proposal a bit more in depth

[11:21] <Ian> ...I believe that we are at a point that we need to converge on one spec.

[11:21] <manu> q+ to note that you do have editors in the WG (we have an obligation to respond)

[11:21] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:22] <Ian> adrianhB: And we need to move editor roles into the WG for proper interactions with the WG

[11:22] <Ian> ...e.g., deadlines, etc.

[11:22] <Ian> ...we've sought to avoid "competition" among specs, but they raise issues and our goal has been to resolve them and differences between the specs to increase consensus.

[11:23] <Ian> ...let's acknowledge the fact that not everyone can dedicate hours of time to proposals

[11:24] <nicktr> q+

[11:24] * Zakim sees manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:24] <Ian> ..but also that the group will not progress if there are parallel proposals outside the group, and with different goals

[11:24] <Ian> ...getting on the phone to iron out issues is the best way to resolve them.

[11:24] <Ian> ...Ian has proposed several times that people should write proposals and where there is difference in views, people should work to resolve difference and come back to the group with greater consensus

[11:24] <Ian> (IJ notes we have lots of ways to work together: github, phone calls, FTF and we should leverage all of them)

[11:25] <Ian> AdrianHB: I have made some suggestions to the editors about how we can achieve getting to one spec.

[11:25] <dlongley> if we didn't intend to have "one spec win" let's not do that now -- let's bring everything in and collaborate to get a unified vision (or take a layered approach if that makes sense).

[11:25] <manu> ack manu

[11:25] <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we didn't make this breakthrough on the github issue tracker, it required a phone call. and to note that we only have a few face-to-face meetings. and

[11:25] <nicktr> ack manu

[11:25] <Zakim> ... to note that you do have editors in the WG (we have an obligation to respond)

[11:25] * Zakim sees nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:25] * Zakim sees nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:25] <Ian> ...to use the time in SFO efficiently, we need to capture our architectural discussions in a spec.

[11:26] <Ian> manu: I am not hearing objections to chairs chatting from time to time

[11:26] <Ian> ...phone call was required to tease out issues

[11:26] <AdrianHB> s/chairs/editors/

[11:26] * Ian tx

[11:26] <Ian> q+ to speak about proposals

[11:26] * Zakim sees nicktr, Ian on the speaker queue

[11:27] <Ian> Manu: I am favorable to single proposal. I am hearing pushback from Zach

[11:27] <rbarnes> q+

[11:27] * Zakim sees nicktr, Ian, rbarnes on the speaker queue

[11:27] <AdrianHB> q+ to ask why there is a need for proposals to stay in the WICG?

[11:27] * Zakim sees nicktr, Ian, rbarnes, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:27] <rbarnes> q-

[11:27] * Zakim sees nicktr, Ian, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:28] * Ian thinks we don't need to do that; we are working toward FPWD in march

[11:28] <Ian> Manu: It is not true this group does not have editors. That's not true...we have been making changes based on discussion.

[11:28] <Ian> (IJ thinks that's a minor point - by definition we don't have specs and thus editors. But obviously we have editors of the specs that are input)

[11:28] <nicktr> q?

[11:28] * Zakim sees nicktr, Ian, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:28] <AdrianHB> Those changes are being made to a spec that is not owned by the group. That is my point

[11:29] <Ian> ack nicktr

[11:29] * Zakim sees Ian, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:29] <manu> AdrianHB: We're happy to have it owned by the group!

[11:29] <Ian> nicktr: I welcome critique of how the WG to help us work better.

[11:29] <manu> s/AdrianHB: We're/AdrianHB, we're/

[11:29] <dlongley> AdrianHB: Let's move it into the group then!

[11:30] <manu> s/AdrianHB: Let's/AdrianHB, let's/

[11:30] <Ian> nicktr: As co-Chair I feel the responsibility to ensure what we are doing is inclusive of all in the WG

[11:30] <Ian> ...I have struggled with the best mechanism of doing that

[11:30] <Ian> ..I think two proposals have hurt us.

[11:30] <Ian> ...debate without dealing with fundamentals.

[11:30] <manu> q+ to say that the flows have tremendous value, just not early in the process for the API development.

[11:30] * Zakim sees Ian, AdrianHB, manu on the speaker queue

[11:31] <Ian> ...I remain convinced the flows represent the best way to engage with broader community, and also they give us the best way to test usefulness of specs against these "tests"

[11:31] <Ian> nicktr: I have no issue with bilateral discussions outside the group. Let's just bring them back to the mailing list and calls

[11:31] <manu> q+ to note that we need more transparency.

[11:31] * Zakim sees Ian, AdrianHB, manu on the speaker queue

[11:31] * dlongley flows are very important, but we need to spend more time on calls talking about the API, less about the flows

[11:31] <Ian> ..the more conversations we have the better.

[11:31] * manu will scribe for Ian.

[11:31] <nicktr> q?

[11:31] * Zakim sees Ian, AdrianHB, manu on the speaker queue

[11:32] * dlongley talking about the flows *in the context of the API* would be a good discussion topic -- and this will happen over time, i expect.

[11:32] <manu> Ian: Like Zach, I think we're making a lot of progress - flows work that's valuable, input form the CG, rapidly developing specs from others, lots of activity on the list.

[11:32] <nicktr> q+ to note that this is exactly what we would like to do

[11:32] * Zakim sees Ian, AdrianHB, manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:32] <manu> Ian: I don't think it's always unchaotic, but I believe what we are seeing are concrete proposals being written. That's the best way for people to reach an understanding. Make sure there are specifics that people can rebound to.

[11:33] <manu> Ian: The time required for the Google/Microsoft proposal to come into view has shed light on differences in views, which is valuable.

[11:33] <manu> Ian: I do not know how we would have made progress on abstract architectural discussions up front.

[11:33] <manu> q+ to say how we could have made progress w/o two specs.

[11:33] * Zakim sees Ian, AdrianHB, manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:33] <manu> Ian: I don't know if we could have done this in the abstract.

[11:34] * dlongley i think we would have made progress by having a single API spec in this WG and talking about it openly on the calls (so not abstract, just single spec, single location, collaborating)

[11:34] <manu> Ian: The lengthy discussions happening on JSON-LD meets a lot of needs, but even on Github, we're starting to see things emerge. I'd like to get big issues up front, in advance of WG meeting. Maybe editors have started to identify what the big issues are - if they can reach agreement, that alone would be a tremendous help in structuring agenda in face-to-face meeting.

[11:34] <manu> Ian: 75% of the time is allocated to issue management.

[11:35] <nicktr> q

[11:35] <nicktr> q?

[11:35] * Zakim sees Ian, AdrianHB, manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:35] <manu> Ian: I would rather see if we could spend other parts of this call on concrete changes on how group is moving forward, and discussing issues, if possible.

[11:35] <Ian> ack me

[11:35] <Zakim> Ian, you wanted to speak about proposals

[11:35] * Zakim sees AdrianHB, manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:35] <nicktr> ack adrianba

[11:35] * Zakim sees AdrianHB, manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:35] <Ian> [Please continue to write proposals everyone!]

[11:35] <manu> ack AdrianHB

[11:35] <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to ask why there is a need for proposals to stay in the WICG?

[11:35] <nicktr> ack adrianbaack AdrianHB

[11:35] * Zakim sees manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:35] <manu> q+ to not that he doesn't back idea of proposals existing out of WGs.

[11:35] * Zakim sees manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:35] <Ian> adrianHB: There seems to be an impression that the proposals should continue. But I'm not sure who is proposing that or backs that idea. I would like to understand the rationale for the two specs continuing to develop independently.

[11:36] <manu> q+ to note rationale around why in CG.

[11:36] * Zakim sees manu, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:36] <Ian> ...I agree with Ian we've learned a lot up to now, but I don't understand the rationale for keeping it that way if we have editors in the WG who can agree with a starting point for the spec.

[11:36] <manu> ack manu

[11:36] <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that the flows have tremendous value, just not early in the process for the API development. and to note that we need more transparency. and to say how we

[11:36] <Zakim> ... could have made progress w/o two specs. and to not that he doesn't back idea of proposals existing out of WGs. and to note rationale around why in CG.

[11:36] * Zakim sees nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:36] <Ian> ack manu

[11:36] * Zakim sees nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:36] <ShaneM> To the extent that the current proposals address different needs, there isn't an obvious way to harmonize into a single spec.

[11:36] <Ian> Manu: Clarification - flows have value but are not yet helping with the API development.

[11:37] <Ian> ...we will need them moving forward

[11:37] <Ian> ...another note on bilateral discussions...yes as long as everyone is invited to them.

[11:37] <Ian> ...some bilateral discussions may have to be between key people like editors...want to be transparent but also make calls effective

[11:38] <Ian> ...regarding Ian's assertion that we would not have made progress without specs...start with a blank document and move from there...other groups have done that and I've seen success.

[11:38] <nicktr> q?

[11:38] * Zakim sees nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:39] <Ian> manu: We want to bring the CG proposals to the WG. But it was decided not to do that yet. The rationale was that the IPR commitments in a CG happen faster

[11:39] <Ian> ...get (lighter weight) IP commitment sooner than in a WG

[11:39] <AdrianHB> My q is what is the rationale to not bring a spec into the WG now

[11:40] <Ian> manu: The credential CG authors want to move to WG

[11:40] <dlongley> s/credential/web payments

[11:40] <Ian> ..and we'd like the group have the power to make changes based on consensus decisions

[11:40] <nicktr> ack nicktr

[11:40] <Zakim> nicktr, you wanted to note that this is exactly what we would like to do

[11:40] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

[11:41] <Ian> nicktr: Regarding writing the APIs and then checking if flows work is backwards IMO

[11:41] <ShaneM> BTW, Thanks to Nick for changing the appearance of the flows!

[11:41] * Ian suggests we not debate that point further re: flows

[11:41] <manu> q+ to note that he's a software engineer too, and he's not smart enough to keep all of those flows in his head and design an API around them.

[11:41] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:41] <manu> q-

[11:41] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

[11:41] <Ian> matt: I would like to see us (after getting to one spec) to see how the spec applies to the flows

[11:42] <dlongley> +1 to matt, i think we should, from time to time, visit the flows.

[11:42] <Ian> ...we should write the API, test it against flows, then adjust API as needed, and so on

[11:42] <nicktr> q?

[11:42] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

[11:42] <AdrianHB> +1 that the work can be done in parallel and the flows used as a yard stick

[11:42] <manu> +1 to note debate usefulness of flows - they're useful - we need to do analysis, but we don't have a single API to do analysis against.

[11:42] <manu> bi-monthly!

[11:42] <ShaneM> Note that there are plenty of use cases that we should be testing against too.

[11:43] <AdrianHB> +1 ShaneM

[11:43] * dlongley lost audio

[11:43] <Ian> IJ: I don't think formal decision required re: editors collaborating...kudos to them for taking the time

[11:43] * manu lost audio

[11:43] <adrianba> q+

[11:43] * Zakim sees adrianba on the speaker queue

[11:43] * dlongley anyone else lose audio?

[11:43] * ShaneM lost audio too

[11:43] <Ian> yes

[11:43] * padler lost audio..

[11:43] <Ian> no audio

[11:43] <Ian> hmm

[11:43] * zkoch still has audio

[11:43] * AdrianHB still has audio

[11:43] * adrianba can hear too

[11:43] * manu loves WebEx.

[11:43] * ShaneM notes low tech crap

[11:44] * Ian has no audio

[11:44] <Ian> back!!

[11:44] * dlongley it's back!

[11:44] <Ian> q?

[11:44] * Zakim sees adrianba on the speaker queue

[11:44] * manu back.

[11:44] * ShaneM is back

[11:44] * padler is back

[11:44] <Ian> nicktr: To summarize, I would like there to be a proposal to the group next week on how we can have one spec

[11:45] * dlongley or a layered approach

[11:45] <manu> q+ to see what Zach thinks.

[11:45] * Zakim sees adrianba, manu on the speaker queue

[11:45] <nicktr> q?

[11:45] * Zakim sees adrianba, manu on the speaker queue

[11:45] * dlongley yes, +1000

[11:45] * manu thinks that's aggressive.

[11:45] <nicktr> ack adrianba

[11:45] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:45] <Ian> IJ: Let's say "one path forward" (and potentially N specs)

[11:45] <Ian> ack adrianba

[11:45] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:46] <manu> q+ to make emails public

[11:46] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:46] <Ian> adrianba: I have email that I have not yet read today. I would like some time to think about what is being discussed here.

[11:46] <Ian> ...I have no objections to a single path forward.

[11:46] <Ian> ...I am a little skeptical that we are as close to being able to do that as some people have suggested.

[11:46] <Ian> ...we are pretty close to the FTF...while I agree with what Manu has said that we cannot rely on FTF meetings to rely on all issues (and can use other means),

[11:47] <Ian> ...we are a few weeks away from a FTF meeting and I'm not too worried about not resolving this substantive issue before the meeting.

[11:47] <Ian> q+

[11:47] * Zakim sees manu, Ian on the speaker queue

[11:47] <manu> q+ to note that he'd be supportive of working through this at the face-to-face.

[11:47] * Zakim sees manu, Ian on the speaker queue

[11:47] <Ian> ...great if people can come up with a proposal before the meeting.

[11:47] <Ian> ...the goal we should have for the FTF meeting is that we have a decision about how we proceed.

[11:47] * dlongley notes I can't be present at F2F, but Manu will be.

[11:47] <Ian> (+1 to that goal)

[11:47] <Ian> ...regarding IPR...I don't think the time out was necessarily a big part of my rationale

[11:47] <nicktr> q?

[11:47] * Zakim sees manu, Ian on the speaker queue

[11:47] <Ian> ...we can discuss further over beer at FTF

[11:47] <nicktr> ack manu

[11:47] <Zakim> manu, you wanted to see what Zach thinks. and to make emails public and to note that he'd be supportive of working through this at the face-to-face.

[11:47] * Zakim sees Ian on the speaker queue

[11:48] <Ian> manu: I would like to hear what Zach thinks about "can we come up with a unified proposal by next week"

[11:48] <nicktr> q+ to clarify

[11:48] * Zakim sees Ian, nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:48] <Ian> manu: In the interim (pre-FTF) the editors can get together to put issues together for FTF

[11:48] <Ian> ...my concern is that we are pushing Zach and AdrianB

[11:49] <Ian> ...while I am supportive of a single spec, I don't want to push editors if they are not ready

[11:49] Zakim zkoch

[11:49] <Ian> zkoch: +1 to AdrianB's comments

[11:49] <Ian> ...if there are proposals we are happy to see and evaluate them.

[11:49] * AdrianHB thinks nicktr is asking for a proposed path forward not a proposed spec

[11:49] <Ian> ..and perhaps the checkout approach is a starting point

[11:49] * Ian agrees with AHB

[11:49] * nicktr is on the queue to say so

[11:49] <Ian> ...use FTF to understand basis for a single path forward

[11:50] <Ian> ...I think there are still fundamental differences...we can get started on those pre-FTF

[11:50] <Ian> ack me

[11:50] * Zakim sees nicktr on the speaker queue

[11:50] * AdrianHB thinks the word proposal is very loaded at W3C

[11:50] <manu> q+ to not that this should not be taken as an excuse to drag things out for 2+ months, either.

[11:50] * Zakim sees nicktr, manu on the speaker queue

[11:51] <AdrianHB> q+ to suggest a big issue that needs to be resolved

[11:51] * Zakim sees nicktr, manu, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:51] * manu apologizes - he didn't capture that.

[11:51] * manu Ian - could you please type that in.

[11:51] <Ian> IJ: Can editors get together to articulate issues, order them, and even start to resolve big ones over next 2 weeks

[11:51] <Ian> ..that will help us organize the FTF to be efficient

[11:52] <Ian> nicktr: I did not mean "must have unified spec" next week but rather "ideas for how to get there"

[11:52] <nicktr> q?

[11:52] * Zakim sees nicktr, manu, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:52] <manu> q+ to thank NickTR on the clarification, and that we might not have a single spec.

[11:52] * Zakim sees nicktr, manu, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:52] <nicktr> ack manu

[11:52] <Zakim> manu, you wanted to not that this should not be taken as an excuse to drag things out for 2+ months, either. and to thank NickTR on the clarification, and that we might not have a

[11:52] <Zakim> ... single spec.

[11:52] * Zakim sees nicktr, AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:52] <manu> Ian: Let's not say single spec - let's say "single path"

[11:52] <nicktr> ack me

[11:52] <Zakim> nicktr, you wanted to clarify

[11:52] * Zakim sees AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:52] <manu> Ian: There will not be a sense of a single path forward until we work through these issues at the face-to-face meeting.

[11:53] <manu> Ian: Before then, it all hinges on how the issues are articulated and addressed.

[11:53] <Ian> IJ: I Think "path forward" depends on how issues are articulated and addressed.

[11:53] <Ian> Manu: I don't want to take 2 months to get to single path

[11:54] <AdrianHB> q?

[11:54] * Zakim sees AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:54] <nicktr> q?

[11:54] * Zakim sees AdrianHB on the speaker queue

[11:54] <Ian> Manu: +1 to having better idea of how to get to single path by end of FTF

[11:54] <Ian> ack AdrianHB

[11:54] <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest a big issue that needs to be resolved

[11:54] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

[11:55] <Ian> AdrianHB: I am more optimistic about our ability to get consensus on issues pre-FTF

[11:55] <Ian> ...one issue IMO we should address soon

[11:55] <manu> q+ to ask to make email exchange public.

[11:55] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:55] <Ian> ..the issue is JSON-LD

[11:56] * dlongley is that a true assertion? (please respond)

[11:56] <Ian> ..I believe the CG specs are not getting traction because they look different from other API proposals from W3C

[11:56] * dlongley my assertion is that people are just in their own camps doing their own thing to try stuff out in their own way.

[11:56] <manu> q+ to note that JSON-LD is NOT a requirement for the CG specs... so that's a misunderstanding.

[11:56] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:56] <Ian> ...I believe that if the CG specs were to look more like other API specs (using WebIDL) we might have a better impression of what the CG spec would look like

[11:57] <nicktr> q?

[11:57] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:57] <nicktr> zakim, close the queue

[11:57] <Zakim> ok, nicktr, the speaker queue is closed

[11:57] * padler needs to drop... have a great rest of the day all!

[11:57] <Ian> AdrianHB: I don't think we should publish a spec using format that is not well-understood

[11:57] <manu> very few people in the /Working Group/ know about JSON-LD. Millions of sites already use JSON-LD.

[11:57] <nicktr> q?

[11:57] * Zakim sees manu on the speaker queue

[11:57] <Ian> ...I think that if we can get through that issues before the FTF I believe we will get to complementary proposals.

[11:57] <nicktr> ack manu

[11:57] <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask to make email exchange public. and to note that JSON-LD is NOT a requirement for the CG specs... so that's a misunderstanding.

[11:57] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

[11:58] * dlongley and by "tabled" he means "put on the table"

[11:59] * Ian this record is public

[12:00] <manu> Ian: Regarding JSON-LD - how do the Chairs want to proceed.

[12:00] <dlongley> i'd like to see what the WG thinks about it before we have a concrete proposal.

[12:00] <manu> q+ to object to Ian's proposal, I feel like this is being railroaded through.

[12:00] * Zakim whispers to manu that the speaker queue has been closed

[12:00] * rbarnes gotta run ttyl

[12:00] <dlongley> q+ to note that there have been assertions about other people's thoughts in this group regarding the technology

[12:00] * Zakim whispers to dlongley that the speaker queue has been closed

[12:00] * rbarnes has quit ()

[12:00] <manu> I object to Ian's proposal, I feel like it's being railroaded through. I want to hear from the WG.

[12:01] <dlongley> there has been an assertion that people think X, please actually say what you think.

[12:01] <manu> Yes, Ian can't filter what people are saying behind closed doors and assert those statements are true.

[12:01] <AdrianHB> I agree, the WG must please engage on this issue on the GitHub thread

[12:01] <dlongley> if you don't respond, that should be taken as indifference, in my view.


Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.142 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/02/04 18:07:36 $