16:52:14 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 16:52:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-wpwg-irc 16:52:16 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:52:16 Zakim has joined #wpwg 16:52:18 Zakim, this will be 16:52:18 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 16:52:19 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 16:52:19 Date: 10 March 2016 16:54:38 AdrianHB has joined #wpwg 16:55:36 Present+ rouslan 16:57:20 dezell has joined #wpwg 17:00:34 Present+ 17:00:43 nicktr has joined #wpwg 17:00:43 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/F2F-Agenda 17:00:46 present+ 17:00:55 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160310 17:02:36 zkoch has joined #wpwg 17:02:40 present+ zkoch 17:02:52 present+ shepazu 17:02:56 present+ nicktr 17:03:01 MattS has joined #wpwg 17:04:25 present+ dlongley 17:04:33 present+ dlehn 17:04:36 present+ manu 17:05:07 Link to agenda 17:05:10 -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160310 17:05:17 adrianba has changed the topic to: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160310 17:05:33 Adrian? 17:05:58 agenda? 17:06:03 topic: 17:06:03 FPWD update from editors. 17:06:07 Topic: FPWD update from editors. 17:06:08 (Audio also working for me) 17:06:11 (For me too) 17:06:13 Yes 17:06:15 scribe: Ian 17:06:16 kriske has joined #wpwg 17:06:54 adrianba: Proposal is top publish 4 docs at FPWD. (3 Rec-track + 1 NOTE for Arch doc) 17:07:01 ...if there are issues that people want to be INCLUDED in the FPWD as called-out issues 17:07:11 ...then please be sure to raise them in the repo 17:07:22 ...we'll try to be sure that the issues raised are placed in the appropriate place in the spec 17:07:33 ...if we don't get to them, they can still be included afterwards 17:07:54 ...I think the documents are in pretty good shape. The call to action to the WG is to raise issues that are not yet in the spec repo. 17:08:00 q? 17:08:09 ...ideally, if you have a pull request for HOW to reflect the issue in the spec, that's even better 17:08:38 q+ 17:09:00 MattS: I observe that by putting out a spec that talks about payment applications, but not indicating how to create them, that could create lots of feedback. 17:09:03 q+ 17:09:07 ...do we want to at least publish a link to the explainer? 17:09:11 ack MattS 17:09:12 ack m 17:09:35 adrianba: We do have an issue raised about registration ([IJ: actually several]). That issue is referenced in the document. 17:09:41 AdrianHB has joined #wpwg 17:09:53 ...it says we need to write up registration work and I think there is a link to Zach's explainer. 17:10:11 q? 17:10:15 q+ to ask for links to specs. 17:10:18 ...welcome suggestions for how to include mention in the document 17:10:20 ack adrianba 17:10:49 https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/ 17:12:59 brian has joined #wpwg 17:13:11 IJ: Expectation set at WG meeting was for four; this call is to confirm them. 17:13:29 adrianba: We have invited reviews .. there was one issue that we called out last week about payment method identifiers 17:13:37 ....that doc currently really just a list of issues.... 17:13:38 q+ to note that none of the issues from the WG have been moved over to spec repo 17:13:49 ...last week we issued a call for proposals. 17:13:56 +1 to all 4 specs will be part of FPWD but group needs to provide feedback (none since the repo was setup a week ago) 17:14:07 ...There are two pull requests with proposals for that doc. 17:14:20 ...we are having this discussion today to confirm the WG wants to publish the four documents. 17:14:35 ...I think we have a reasonable scope established in the docs. They certainly will change but I think they reflect what we are trying to accomplish. 17:14:40 q? 17:14:43 ...but people should object if they have objections. 17:14:45 ack manu 17:14:45 manu, you wanted to ask for links to specs. and to note that none of the issues from the WG have been moved over to spec repo 17:14:59 q+ 17:15:07 manu: I am looking through the payment request api spec. It doesn't reflect the issues that have been raised in the main repo. 17:15:17 q? 17:15:19 ...I am guessing they have not yet been put in the spec. 17:15:20 q+ to discuss process to migrate issues 17:15:31 q- later 17:15:33 ...is the expectation to migrate issues from main repo to the spec? 17:15:57 q? 17:16:36 present+ shepazu 17:16:40 IJ: what do editors expect from WG or expect to do themselves to reflect issues? 17:16:43 present+ ShaneM 17:17:02 adrianhb: There are a few sources of issues: 17:17:19 * Issues in the original github repo against the proposal. The editors migrated those across when the specs were brought into the WG 17:17:57 * Issues in the main WG repo. We discussed on the previous call. We asked WG participants to close the issue in the main repo and log the issue directly in the spec issues list if they want it to appear as an issue in the FPWD 17:18:14 * Third source of issues was Ian's trawl through the WG, and he logged those in either main repo or spec repo 17:18:22 q? 17:18:27 ack AdrianHB 17:18:27 AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss process to migrate issues 17:18:34 present+ kriske 17:18:37 ..the WG's todo is to look at issues in main repo, decide where appropriate for specs going to FPWD, and move them to that repo 17:18:56 ...if an issue is important to you, and appropriate to migrate to the spec repo, please do that this week. 17:19:06 ..if you have questions on how to do that, contact me. 17:19:09 q? 17:19:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 17:19:19 rrsagent, set logs public 17:19:35 adrianhb: People can also register new issues and pull requests (notably on how to represent an issue in the spec) 17:19:44 ack adrianba 17:20:03 ack adrianba 17:20:16 adrianba: We will work to incorporate as many as we can in the spec in appropriate place by FPWD. 17:20:17 adrianba: hopefully you can use the respec hook to github so that the issues are just linked. 17:20:31 ...my preference is that people make pull requests with concrete text and location. 17:20:32 +t to pull requests being most useful :) 17:20:44 +1 to PR's as issue notes 17:20:58 Manu: We'll migrate the issues we had and do pul requests 17:21:07 q? 17:21:14 IJ: Check first to see which have (not yet) migrated 17:21:30 If any issues have been migrated it would be great if the person that did that closed the original issue with a pointer to the new issue 17:21:37 nicktr: So, regarding the four documents, which should form FPWD request. 17:21:46 PROPOSED: All four documents. All Recs except Arch Doc 17:21:50 q? 17:22:20 adrianba: Arch doc would be a Note (you don't implement it directly) 17:22:40 ...for the other three, we think API should be red-track. Some discussion about whether the others should or shouldnl'tl be. 17:23:00 ...proposal today is to treat as REC-track today since easy to move to NOTE later (and harder in the other direction) 17:23:03 q? 17:23:11 q+ to be concerned about Basic Card Payment and PMI specs 17:23:26 ack manu 17:23:26 manu, you wanted to be concerned about Basic Card Payment and PMI specs 17:24:15 Manu: The payment request spec is more or less fine. The architecture spec, however, is not the same as the AHB architecture document. So that's a concern. 17:24:32 ...the payment request architecture is specific to the set of specs, which is a good thing. But there is a split in vision about what we are creating. 17:24:51 ...we did have consensus about payment request API as FPWD. 17:24:56 I note that there are no pointers to whatever we are talking about in agenda nor in the history of this chat window right now. I am confused. 17:25:05 ..the method identifer spec is currently empty; I question the value of publishing a FPWD that is mostly empty 17:25:19 ..the basic card payment spec ... we've not had discussion with the card networks 17:25:27 ...I question publishing something without discussing with them. 17:25:52 Manu: I am ok with payment request architecture as an overview 17:25:56 q+ 17:26:06 q? 17:26:15 ack AdrianHB 17:26:37 adrianhb: I agree in many respects with Manu but not the actions. I do think we should publish all of them. 17:26:46 ...I have a concern about the architecture doc differences. 17:26:47 q+ 17:26:55 ...I would like to make some changes to the architecture document. 17:27:07 There’s a PR from Adrianba for a couple of proposals for payment method identifiers: https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/34 17:27:12 ...if anyone would like a stab at taking the wiki context and submitting some of that into the repo before we publish, I would appreciate that. 17:27:31 ..in terms of the method identifiers, I think it's useful to publish that to let people know we're going to have something there. 17:27:46 ...also the same thing with the card payment spec. I think it will raise awareness for them. 17:28:08 ...they are more likely to take notice. We should be explicit that we want to invite (and expect) their input. 17:28:11 -> https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/tree/gh-pages/specs 17:28:20 ...I think that document is valueable as an example. 17:28:27 q? 17:28:30 ...so I am in favor of publishing card spec with clear invitation for industry input 17:28:38 q+ to suggest we pull back on publishing a doc until we have proper review (at least 4 complete reviews w/ thorough comments). 17:29:21 ian: I think that the architecture spec is different from the architecture wiki 17:29:53 ... the wiki is a high-level explainer 17:29:59 My goal for the architecture document was primarily a "document architecture" of how things are organized - happy to make changes though 17:30:06 They are different but related. 17:30:09 ... the architecture spec isn't controversial IMO 17:30:12 Think they could be combined 17:30:28 ... I'd be happy to go through them and align and make suggestions for changes where required 17:30:34 Suggest Ian make suggestions through PRs 17:30:44 ... this will allow me to confirm my assertion that they're doing different things 17:31:08 ian: My view is to pusblish with clear notes as to the status of the docs 17:31:25 ... we don't want to create a bad first impression but we want input 17:31:36 q? 17:31:40 ack Ian 17:31:43 IJ: It's precisely by raising awareness that we will get input and that's key to progress. 17:31:46 ack manu 17:31:46 manu, you wanted to suggest we pull back on publishing a doc until we have proper review (at least 4 complete reviews w/ thorough comments). 17:31:59 Manu: I have a slightly different suggestion. I am concerned about publishing anything that's FPWD that's not been reviewed. 17:32:32 ...we haven't had a lot of review of these docs. 17:32:43 ..I'd like people to review them thoroughly (e.g., 4) 17:32:49 ...payment request API has had that review 17:32:54 ..I don't think the others have had review 17:32:57 q+ 17:33:23 Manu: We can point to these docs even if we don't publish them as FPWD 17:33:36 ...so if we only publish payment request, we can link to these other editor's drafts 17:33:52 ...I am unconvinced that the specs need to broken up the way that they have been 17:33:53 We requested this review last week - we have time to add issues - we're not saying the current documents are to be published in their current form today 17:34:00 q? 17:34:00 ..and also the overlap with other specs we might 17:34:20 IJ: has read all the specs 17:35:52 ShaneM: W.r.t the specs we are discussing right now, I have ONLY read the API spec. I didn't know the others were on the table until I read the agenda yesterday. And there were no document pointers in the agenda, so... I had no idea what was being proposed. 17:36:04 (and this is my full time job!) 17:36:21 q+ to suggest that we try to spread the activity a little better through the week 17:36:29 ack me 17:36:43 ACTION: Manu to review Payment Request API spec by March 15th 2016 (and attempt to do the other ones as well). 17:36:44 Created ACTION-15 - Review payment request api spec by march 15th 2016 (and attempt to do the other ones as well). [on Manu Sporny - due 2016-03-17]. 17:36:46 PROPOSED: Three people to sign up to review the specs to review the docs (and raise issues) by 15 March 17:37:02 RSL has read all the specs 17:37:02 (I've read some version of all the specs, will re-read current versions before next telcon and offer reviews) 17:37:10 s/RSL/RS: 17:37:28 q? 17:37:57 q+ 17:38:10 yaso has joined #wpwg 17:38:19 +1 to proposal from Ian 17:38:42 ack AdrianHB 17:38:42 AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest that we try to spread the activity a little better through the week 17:39:20 nicktr: I agree that the F2F meeting only specifically addressed the PaymentRequest API document and our goal of getting to FPWG in March. 17:39:22 AdrianHB: I urge people to do work well before the call day 17:39:25 zakim, who's here? 17:39:25 Present: rouslan, dezell, Ian, zkoch, shepazu, nicktr, dlongley, dlehn, manu, ShaneM, kriske 17:39:28 On IRC I see yaso, brian, AdrianHB, kriske, MattS, nicktr, dezell, Zakim, RRSAgent, rouslan, shepazu, schuki, collier-matthew, hober, ShaneM, mkwst, adrianba, dwim_, davidillsley, 17:39:28 ... manu, dlongley, slightlyoff, dlehn, Ian, wseltzer, trackbot 17:39:33 q? 17:39:46 nicktr: +1 17:39:58 ack Ian 17:40:50 q? 17:41:51 that is my expectation too 17:42:21 i will have read all four at the last responsible moment (so that they are as up to date as possible) 17:42:36 and so will others in worldpay 17:42:51 q? 17:43:27 I have cycles to do complete reviews of all the documents. 17:43:39 IJ: Could chairs work with people offline to get commitments 17:43:50 ACTION: NickTR to reach out to WG participants to secure reviews 17:43:50 Created ACTION-16 - Reach out to wg participants to secure reviews [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2016-03-17]. 17:44:00 nicktr: A large number of people within Worldpay are reviewing the specs. 17:44:09 I'm happy to review them, but not sure what I can add to them. 17:44:42 q? 17:45:14 Ian: We should either publish them as WD's going to RECs or just publish as EDs. 17:45:26 ij: we will either publish as rec track or not publish and point to editor's drafts 17:45:27 Ian: We should not publish as NOTEs and then change to REC-track. 17:45:37 I agree with Ian 17:45:39 q? 17:45:45 Topic: Notifications from the spec repo 17:46:41 As I said at TPAC, I would prefer this be a different list 17:46:43 NickTR: Should we NOT mirror to the list? 17:46:45 +1 mirror them 17:46:46 Shane: Please mirror 17:46:48 I don't want to get every notification twice 17:47:04 NickTR: Which list? 17:47:26 Shane: You can unwatch on github 17:47:28 q+ to say we solved this problem already 17:47:30 q+ 17:47:34 ack manu 17:47:34 manu, you wanted to say we solved this problem already 17:47:49 Manu: Doug and I solved this a while ago...unwatch on github 17:47:59 ...we should mirror on w3c list 17:48:50 NickTR: I think the consensus "If we mirror to main WG mailing list, people can unwatch on github" 17:49:12 q? 17:49:30 My workflow is through GitHub because it tracks mentions, etc. - I don't think unwatch is a good solution but I appear to be in the minority :( 17:50:03 IJ: Another question - should we create a spec list to reduce noise on main list? 17:50:19 doug: I am somewhat concerned about splitting conversation but also sensitive to noise 17:50:33 ...so I think most conservative approach is to create a spec list, opt out 17:50:37 q? 17:50:39 ack she 17:50:45 nicktr: Summarizing: 17:50:48 PROPOSAL: webpayments-specs@w3.org for all spec related GitHub stuff 17:50:54 * Create a spec list 17:50:59 * People can opt out 17:51:13 * And people can unwatch github 17:51:37 ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: People filter on the subject lines 17:51:46 ... (public list with all wg members auto-signed up initially and able to unsubscribe) 17:51:55 -1 for filtering on subject lines 17:52:07 oh well. 17:52:14 See this -> https://www.w3.org/Mail/subject-tagging 17:52:52 +1 17:52:57 +1 17:53:24 ACTION: Ian to create new public spec list, include WG participants to start 17:53:24 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ijacobs, ijmad). 17:53:30 +1 nickt 17:53:36 +1 17:53:41 +1 17:53:47 q? 17:53:58 Topic: TPAC 2016 planning 17:54:05 Proposed to try to meet with some subset of these groups: Accessible Platform Architectures, Browser Testing and Tools, Web App Sec, Web Authentication, Internationalization, Privacy IG, Web Security IG. 17:54:10 Plan is to choose dates (Monday/Tuesday or Thursday/Friday) based on our ability to meet with other groups. 17:54:27 nicktr: Any strong opinions on those groups? 17:54:38 +1 to AdrianHB 17:54:49 (that chairs/staff make that determination) 17:55:29 it's hard to say no to any of them 17:55:31 I think we need a prioritized list. Happy with that set though 17:55:31 but we should 17:55:36 q+ 17:55:53 PROPOSED: Chairs will schedule the meeting based on goal of maximizing meetings with other groups. 17:55:56 ack manu 17:56:21 Manu: Discussing with other groups is good; but we may not have a lot to say with all of them. 17:56:44 q? 17:57:23 Nick: I prefer to bring back a proposal to the group 17:57:41 IJ: Sounds good 17:57:46 topic: next meeting 17:58:08 17 March anticipate call for consensus 17:58:22 24 March finalize decision to publish FPWD 17:58:49 ShaneM: Heads up that there's a risk for some due to St Patrick's Day 17:59:30 NOTE: Daylight Savings Time heads up on 17 and 24 March 17:59:49 ...the meeting will be at noon ET 18:00:02 q? 18:00:05 (hour earlier for many in Europe) 18:00:08 Topic: FTF meeting 18:00:16 Nick: I had an action to look into FTF meeting dates 18:00:41 ...first proposal is 27-29 June at Worldpay 18:00:46 ..i will return to this question next week 18:01:07 q? 18:01:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 18:01:15 rrsagent, set logs public