16:59:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wpwg
16:59:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-wpwg-irc
16:59:18 <Ian> trackball, start meeting
16:59:23 <Ian> trackbot, start meeting
16:59:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
16:59:27 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:59:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference
16:59:28 <trackbot> Date: 18 February 2016
17:01:13 <VincentK> VincentK has joined #wpwg
17:01:26 <dlongley> present+ dlongley
17:01:41 <rouslan> Present+ Rouslan
17:02:12 <zkoch> present+ zkoch
17:03:03 <nicktr> nicktr has joined #wpwg
17:03:14 <manu> Present+ Manu
17:03:21 <dlehn> present+ dlehn
17:03:34 <AdrianHB> Present+ AdrianHB
17:03:40 <nicktr> present+ nicktr
17:03:51 <VincentK> present+ VincentK
17:03:55 <Ian> scribe: Ian
17:03:55 <Ian> present+ Ian
17:04:43 <Ian> topic: Preparing for issue discussion at FTF meeting
17:04:57 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
17:04:58 <Ian> Nick: Thanks, manu, for starting the conversation
17:05:07 <nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/89
17:05:18 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
17:05:40 <manu> q+ to note AdrianB's issue.
17:05:46 <manu> ack manu
17:05:46 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note AdrianB's issue.
17:05:49 <nicktr> ack manu
17:06:05 <Ian> manu: Chatted with AdrianBA yesterday
17:06:20 <Ian> ...he has one to add
17:07:31 <AdrianHB> q+ to discuss Zach's comment as a first step
17:07:33 <Ian> manu: We should do technical things first (before strategic or operations)
17:07:44 <Ian> ...I agree with Zach we should deal with the hard issues where nuance is important
17:08:17 <Ian> ...first issue is are we doing low level, or both low and higher level?
17:08:56 <Ian> ...there's also a question around shipping address...I think that there is agreement among editors to support the shipping use case.
17:08:57 <Ian> q+
17:09:48 <Ian> ...question around payment app registration. What is an app? How are they installed?
17:10:08 <Ian> ...answering that question will then help us answer question about how to communicate with payment apps.
17:10:48 <Ian> ...Question "5" will be about "how will we do things like feature detection" in API (e.g., does it support billing address)?
17:10:58 <nicktr> q?
17:11:12 <Ian> ...question 6 is about use of events/promises...what is the interaction pattern (if we do a checkout API)
17:11:26 <kris> kris has joined #wpwg
17:11:35 <nicktr> ack AdrianHB
17:11:35 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss Zach's comment as a first step
17:11:59 <Ian> AdrianHB: We should order these questions so we can build on them
17:12:28 <Ian> ...manu said "there is consensus among editors to support shipping." So I think we should put that to the group and move on from there, accepting that as a requirement.
17:12:49 <Ian> ...I think we need to put pins in some requirements
17:13:23 <Ian> ...I think we have a spectrum of options (from "just payment" to checkout)...and in the middle we have "everything in one API but with some additional features"
17:13:36 <Ian> ...let's nail down the requirements and then answer some of the questions on the back of that
17:13:40 <dezell> dezell has joined #wpwg
17:13:46 <dezell> Present+
17:13:59 <nicktr> ack Ian
17:14:40 <manu> q+ to note AdrianB's concerns about having discussions at too high of a level.
17:15:13 <AdrianHB> q+ to request that we see some example developer code
17:15:26 <Ian> IJ: Let's tease out requirements as AHB has started to do
17:15:28 <nicktr> ack manu
17:15:28 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note AdrianB's concerns about having discussions at too high of a level.
17:15:35 <Ian> ...e.g., developer usability
17:16:00 <Ian> Manu: I agree that some conversations are happening at "too high a level"...
17:16:29 <adrianba> i'm fine with making sure we agree on what problems we want to try to solve
17:16:50 <Ian> manu: It may be hard for us to come to ground on requirements quickly at FTF meeting
17:16:51 <adrianba> my criticism was more about arguments about the type of technology we might use
17:17:08 <collier-matthew> collier-matthew has joined #wpwg
17:17:17 <Ian> Manu: The specs have developer code we can look at
17:17:39 <Ian> (as far as comparing code as a way to pick most dev-friendly design)
17:18:00 <AdrianHB> +1 to getting agreement on the goals/requirements up front (and quickly if we can)
17:20:00 <manu> q+ to ask if he should try restating the questions as questions around goals?
17:20:39 <nicktr> q?
17:21:34 <Ian> IJ: You need to articulate the requirement (e.g,.  "performance") before making some design decisions.
17:21:35 <Ian> ack adrian
17:21:35 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to request that we see some example developer code
17:21:42 <nicktr> ack adrianhb
17:22:03 <Ian> AdrianHB: Regarding developer code, one of the requirements we should consider in how we look at our approaches is: what will it look like when a developer writes a site that uses this API?
17:22:19 <Ian> ...we should take common use cases and write the code that a developer would have to write to use the APIs...and compare them
17:22:23 <Ian> ...this suggestion from W3C staff
17:22:38 <Ian> ...it would be good to have such examples going into the meeting...or can choose them on day one
17:23:22 <Ian> AdrianHB: On the question of "what is a payment app"...I think that we are not all in agreement about how an app will materialize...
17:23:27 <Ian> ...e.g., is it a native app on mobile?
17:23:37 <Ian> ...or a native app on desktop or iframe or browser extension or service worker?
17:23:43 <Ian> ...we should talk about what that thing is going to be
17:23:59 <nicktr> q?
17:24:00 <manu> ack manu
17:24:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if he should try restating the questions as questions around goals?
17:24:51 <Ian> Manu: we could frame questions about goals
17:24:52 <AdrianHB> q+
17:24:57 <Ian> Some ideas:
17:25:01 <dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/89#issuecomment-185819392 <-- i put some suggestions here for high-level goals w/respect to APIs
17:25:44 <Ian> Nick: Helpful for people to express what they think the goals are
17:25:50 <nicktr> q?
17:25:55 <nicktr> ack AdrianHB
17:26:42 <Ian> adrianhb: I think chairs need to structure discussion (which you've touched on on your thread)
17:26:49 <Ian> ...we need to do more work
17:27:38 <Ian> ...I expect we will need to iterate
17:27:50 <mountainhippo> mountainhippo has joined #wpwg
17:28:09 <mountainhippo> Q?
17:28:35 <AdrianHB> q+
17:28:52 <Ian> AdrianHB: It hasn't been mentioned yet, but we will need to go back and look at horizontal review stuff
17:29:01 <Ian> ...we should iterate through those requirements quickly (security, privacy, accessibility)
17:29:30 <Ian> ...and how our design decisions to date reflect those requirements
17:29:45 <Ian> ...e.g., not sharing payment method information with merchant
17:29:56 <Ian> q+
17:29:59 <Ian> ack adrian
17:30:14 <Ian> ack me
17:31:24 <manu> q+ to agree with Ian, we may want to cover this stuff if we start having awkward silences on day 2
17:33:09 <mountainhippo> ack
17:33:17 <Ian> IJ: Personally I think that those topics are really important but our decisions right now seem unrelated; but later let's absolutely add sections to the spec on various considerations.
17:33:23 <manu> ack manu
17:33:23 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree with Ian, we may want to cover this stuff if we start having awkward silences on day 2
17:33:25 <Ian> (e.g., privacy, security, i18n, accessibility)
17:33:54 <Ian> +1 to not "forgetting" to do these things
17:33:59 <Ian> [Strategic questions]
17:34:15 <Ian> Manu: What data do we have to study in order to see if the APIs will meet their goals?
17:34:43 <Ian> .e.g., what data do we have to back up that API choice will reduce cart abandonment
17:35:00 <Ian> [IJ thinks we will not get some data until later]
17:35:22 <Ian> Manu: Another topic is how to extend API without breaking implementations?
17:35:41 <Ian> q+
17:36:01 <manu> q+ to note that we may want to have a spec update at the beginning of the meeting.
17:36:06 <Ian> nick: Flows help us ground discussion in real payments
17:36:18 <Ian> ack manu
17:36:18 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we may want to have a spec update at the beginning of the meeting.
17:36:18 <manu> ack manu
17:36:52 <Ian> manu: I would like the editors to frame "where we our with specs" when we start meeting.
17:37:10 <Ian> ..some people may not be able to read specs before meeting
17:39:13 <mountainhippo> q+
17:39:17 <mountainhippo> ack Ian
17:40:01 <manu> q+ to not that we don't have demos for some of this stuff, only spec code examples
17:40:13 <mountainhippo> ack Ian
17:40:24 <Ian> IJ: I would rather use time for looking at code side-by-side rather than edit history
17:40:29 <Ian> nick: We will have new participatns
17:40:45 <Ian> ...although I am not advocating a full edit history, I think there is value in:
17:41:05 <Ian>  * Reiterating how to prepare for the meeting (which materials available)
17:41:10 <Ian> * Introducing people to the specs
17:41:28 <mountainhippo> q?
17:41:31 <Ian> nick: so I support a (not long) contextualization
17:41:31 <manu> q+ to note that he only meant introducing people to the specs.
17:41:35 <mountainhippo> ack manu
17:41:35 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to not that we don't have demos for some of this stuff, only spec code examples and to note that he only meant introducing people to the specs.
17:41:39 <manu> ack mountainhippo
17:41:39 <manu> ack manu
17:41:39 <mountainhippo> q-
17:41:58 <Ian> (IJ still feels it would be important to look at code as a better way to understand the specs)
17:42:13 <Ian> manu: I did not mean edit history...I meant intro to the spec
17:42:25 <mountainhippo> +1 to manu's suggestion
17:42:57 <Ian> ...we are talking about 3 specs
17:43:08 <AdrianHB> q+ to clarify the focus for the f2f
17:43:11 <Ian> IJ: I can live with 15 mins to intro 3 specs
17:43:25 <Ian> adrianHB: Manu and Ian surfaced something we should clarify
17:43:30 <mountainhippo> ack AdrianHB
17:43:30 <Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to clarify the focus for the f2f
17:43:34 <Ian> ...that we will focus on the browser API
17:43:43 <Ian> ..we will consider then how that work affects other specs we've talked about doing
17:43:49 <manu> q+ to say he's not comfortable, but doesn't feel there is support to look at other specs.
17:43:52 <mountainhippo> q+ to note that he is going to bring a short demo of HTTP api use case and some docs
17:43:55 <Ian> ..but the focus for this FTF is to get us to a FPWD of browser spec
17:43:56 <mountainhippo> ack manu
17:43:56 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say he's not comfortable, but doesn't feel there is support to look at other specs.
17:43:57 <manu> ack manu
17:44:10 <Ian> manu: I am not comfortable that we are pushing off other specs but understand people want to focus on browser API
17:44:20 <ShaneM> +1 to getting something done.  whatever that something is.  We need "points on the board"
17:44:28 <Ian> ...if we have extra time we can talk about HTTP API and others
17:44:30 <mountainhippo> q?
17:44:33 <mountainhippo> ack mountainhippo
17:44:33 <Zakim> mountainhippo, you wanted to note that he is going to bring a short demo of HTTP api use case and some docs
17:44:43 <Ian> nick: I will bring a short demo of an HTTP API
17:44:56 <Ian> ...something that might be useful for HTTP API discussions to come
17:45:00 <AdrianHB> +1 to other API discussions if we have time (even if the editors break out for a short session)
17:45:06 <mountainhippo> q?
17:45:28 <Ian> [Operational topics]
17:45:37 <Ian> +1 to CG discussion at AC meeting as AHB suggested
17:46:08 <Ian> Manu: I think that there are questions like who the editors are and mechanics of getting specs into repo
17:46:53 <Ian> manu: I am concerns about transparency in this group
17:46:54 <Ian> q+
17:47:34 <Ian> -1 to CG discussion at our FTF meeting
17:47:45 <Ian> q?
17:48:37 <mountainhippo> ack Ian
17:48:54 <VincentK> * VincentK has to leave for another meeting
17:50:21 <Ian> I *totally* agree technical work needs to be done in public.
17:50:35 <mountainhippo> q?
17:50:39 <Ian> And having access to all the information avoids silos of understanding
17:50:49 <Ian> nick: I take Manu's concerns seriously.
17:50:52 <manu> +1 to that - we all want the same thing
17:50:55 <dlongley> +1
17:51:00 <manu> we haven't been executing in that way.
17:51:10 <Ian> Totally ready to blame NickTR to speed things up
17:51:36 <Ian> Topic: Issues
17:51:44 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/89#issuecomment-185171992
17:51:50 <Ian>  would like to add either to the agenda or as an issue the following;
17:51:50 <Ian> Adoption/Transition of the API
17:51:50 <Ian> a. Finding the relevant payment application
17:51:51 <Ian> b. If merchant can prefer one payment app over another if there are multiple apps that can perform the same method
17:51:54 <Ian> b. Fall-back methods when no such app exists (or the shopper doesn't want to sign-up to the terms & conditions)
17:51:57 <Ian> c. What our expectation is for situations where the merchant wants to override the 1.0 implementations to better control the flow
17:52:04 <manu> +1 this is an important point to discuss
17:52:07 <AdrianHB> +1
17:52:15 <ShaneM> q+ to mention that we need to start making progress on testing too
17:52:29 <zkoch> q+ to mention some quick logistical things about FTF at google
17:52:44 <Ian> matt: We have too many places where agenda is being developed
17:52:51 <Ian> (Yes, we need to consolidate)
17:52:53 <manu> +1 to consolidate
17:53:02 <manu> (someone needs to take an action on that)
17:53:32 <Ian> (I hear AHB will drive that)
17:53:34 <Ian> Topic: Testing
17:53:57 <Ian> Shane: With my test czar hat on...very important but haven't done anything yet since nothing to test yet.
17:54:03 <Ian> q?
17:54:05 <Ian> ack sh
17:54:05 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to mention that we need to start making progress on testing too
17:54:08 <Ian> ack zkoch
17:54:09 <Zakim> zkoch, you wanted to mention some quick logistical things about FTF at google
17:54:16 <Ian> Topic: FTF logistics
17:54:27 <shepazu> q+
17:54:36 <Ian> Zach: Remember elevator story ... get there before 9am or you will need to check in
17:55:10 <Ian> ack sh
17:55:11 <mountainhippo> q?
17:55:14 <Ian> shepazu: Parking?
17:55:41 <Ian> zkoch: Nothing special; public parking
17:56:43 <mountainhippo> q?
17:58:37 <Ian> rrsagent, make minutes
17:58:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-wpwg-minutes.html Ian
17:58:40 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs team
17:58:44 <Ian> rrsagent, set logs public