Web Payments Working Group Teleconference

<scribe> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160310

<nicktr> Link to agenda

<nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160310

<zkoch> Adrian?

FPWD update from editors.

FPWD update from editors.

<zkoch> (Audio also working for me)

(For me too)

<zkoch> Yes

<scribe> scribe: Ian

adrianba: Proposal is top publish 4 docs at FPWD. (3 Rec-track + 1 NOTE for Arch doc)
... if there are issues that people want to be INCLUDED in the FPWD as called-out issues
... then please be sure to raise them in the repo
... we'll try to be sure that the issues raised are placed in the appropriate place in the spec
... if we don't get to them, they can still be included afterwards
... 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.
... ideally, if you have a pull request for HOW to reflect the issue in the spec, that's even better

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.
... do we want to at least publish a link to the explainer?

adrianba: We do have an issue raised about registration ([IJ: actually several]). That issue is referenced in the document.
... it says we need to write up registration work and I think there is a link to Zach's explainer.
... welcome suggestions for how to include mention in the document

https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/

IJ: Expectation set at WG meeting was for four; this call is to confirm them.

adrianba: We have invited reviews .. there was one issue that we called out last week about payment method identifiers
... that doc currently really just a list of issues....
... last week we issued a call for proposals.

<AdrianHB> +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)

adrianba: There are two pull requests with proposals for that doc.
... we are having this discussion today to confirm the WG wants to publish the four documents.
... 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.
... but people should object if they have objections.

<Zakim> 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

manu: I am looking through the payment request api spec. It doesn't reflect the issues that have been raised in the main repo.
... I am guessing they have not yet been put in the spec.
... is the expectation to migrate issues from main repo to the spec?

IJ: what do editors expect from WG or expect to do themselves to reflect issues?

adrianhb: There are a few sources of issues:

* Issues in the original github repo against the proposal. The editors migrated those across when the specs were brought into the WG

* 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

* Third source of issues was Ian's trawl through the WG, and he logged those in either main repo or spec repo

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss process to migrate issues

scribe: 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
... if an issue is important to you, and appropriate to migrate to the spec repo, please do that this week.
... if you have questions on how to do that, contact me.

adrianhb: People can also register new issues and pull requests (notably on how to represent an issue in the spec)

adrianba: We will work to incorporate as many as we can in the spec in appropriate place by FPWD.

<ShaneM> adrianba: hopefully you can use the respec hook to github so that the issues are just linked.

adrianba: my preference is that people make pull requests with concrete text and location.

<zkoch> +t to pull requests being most useful :)

<AdrianHB> +1 to PR's as issue notes

Manu: We'll migrate the issues we had and do pul requests

IJ: Check first to see which have (not yet) migrated

<AdrianHB> 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

nicktr: So, regarding the four documents, which should form FPWD request.

PROPOSED: All four documents. All Recs except Arch Doc

adrianba: Arch doc would be a Note (you don't implement it directly)
... for the other three, we think API should be red-track. Some discussion about whether the others should or shouldnl'tl be.
... proposal today is to treat as REC-track today since easy to move to NOTE later (and harder in the other direction)

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to be concerned about Basic Card Payment and PMI specs

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.
... 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.
... we did have consensus about payment request API as FPWD.

<ShaneM> 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.

Manu: the method identifer spec is currently empty; I question the value of publishing a FPWD that is mostly empty
... the basic card payment spec ... we've not had discussion with the card networks
... I question publishing something without discussing with them.
... I am ok with payment request architecture as an overview

adrianhb: I agree in many respects with Manu but not the actions. I do think we should publish all of them.
... I have a concern about the architecture doc differences.
... I would like to make some changes to the architecture document.

<zkoch> There’s a PR from Adrianba for a couple of proposals for payment method identifiers: https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/34

adrianhb: 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.
... 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.
... also the same thing with the card payment spec. I think it will raise awareness for them.
... they are more likely to take notice. We should be explicit that we want to invite (and expect) their input.

<nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/tree/gh-pages/specs

adrianhb: I think that document is valueable as an example.
... so I am in favor of publishing card spec with clear invitation for industry input

<nicktr> ian: I think that the architecture spec is different from the architecture wiki

<nicktr> ... the wiki is a high-level explainer

<adrianba> My goal for the architecture document was primarily a "document architecture" of how things are organized - happy to make changes though

<AdrianHB> They are different but related.

<nicktr> ... the architecture spec isn't controversial IMO

<AdrianHB> Think they could be combined

<nicktr> ... I'd be happy to go through them and align and make suggestions for changes where required

<ShaneM> Suggest Ian make suggestions through PRs

<nicktr> ... this will allow me to confirm my assertion that they're doing different things

<nicktr> ian: My view is to pusblish with clear notes as to the status of the docs

<nicktr> ... we don't want to create a bad first impression but we want input

IJ: It's precisely by raising awareness that we will get input and that's key to progress.

<Zakim> 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).

Manu: I have a slightly different suggestion. I am concerned about publishing anything that's FPWD that's not been reviewed.
... we haven't had a lot of review of these docs.
... I'd like people to review them thoroughly (e.g., 4)
... payment request API has had that review
... I don't think the others have had review
... We can point to these docs even if we don't publish them as FPWD
... so if we only publish payment request, we can link to these other editor's drafts
... I am unconvinced that the specs need to broken up the way that they have been

<adrianba> 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

Manu: and also the overlap with other specs we might

IJ: has read all the specs

<ShaneM> 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.

<ShaneM> (and this is my full time job!)

<manu> ACTION: Manu to review Payment Request API spec by March 15th 2016 (and attempt to do the other ones as well). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-wpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> 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].

PROPOSED: Three people to sign up to review the specs to review the docs (and raise issues) by 15 March

<rouslan> RS: has read all the specs

<shepazu> (I've read some version of all the specs, will re-read current versions before next telcon and offer reviews)

<AdrianHB> +1 to proposal from Ian

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to suggest that we try to spread the activity a little better through the week

<ShaneM> nicktr: I agree that the F2F meeting only specifically addressed the PaymentRequest API document and our goal of getting to FPWG in March.

AdrianHB: I urge people to do work well before the call day

nicktr: +1

<nicktr> that is my expectation too

<nicktr> i will have read all four at the last responsible moment (so that they are as up to date as possible)

<nicktr> and so will others in worldpay

<ShaneM> I have cycles to do complete reviews of all the documents.

IJ: Could chairs work with people offline to get commitments

<scribe> ACTION: NickTR to reach out to WG participants to secure reviews [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-wpwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Reach out to wg participants to secure reviews [on Nick Telford-Reed - due 2016-03-17].

nicktr: A large number of people within Worldpay are reviewing the specs.

<rouslan> I'm happy to review them, but not sure what I can add to them.

<manu> Ian: We should either publish them as WD's going to RECs or just publish as EDs.

<AdrianHB> ij: we will either publish as rec track or not publish and point to editor's drafts

<manu> Ian: We should not publish as NOTEs and then change to REC-track.

<manu> I agree with Ian

Notifications from the spec repo

<adrianba> As I said at TPAC, I would prefer this be a different list

NickTR: Should we NOT mirror to the list?

<dlongley> +1 mirror them

Shane: Please mirror

<adrianba> I don't want to get every notification twice

NickTR: Which list?

Shane: You can unwatch on github

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say we solved this problem already

Manu: Doug and I solved this a while ago...unwatch on github
... we should mirror on w3c list

NickTR: I think the consensus "If we mirror to main WG mailing list, people can unwatch on github"

<adrianba> 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 :(

IJ: Another question - should we create a spec list to reduce noise on main list?

doug: I am somewhat concerned about splitting conversation but also sensitive to noise
... so I think most conservative approach is to create a spec list, opt out

nicktr: Summarizing:

<AdrianHB> PROPOSAL: webpayments-specs@w3.org for all spec related GitHub stuff

* Create a spec list

* People can opt out

* And people can unwatch github

<ShaneM> ALTERNATE PROPOSAL: People filter on the subject lines

<AdrianHB> ... (public list with all wg members auto-signed up initially and able to unsubscribe)

-1 for filtering on subject lines

<ShaneM> oh well.

See this -> https://www.w3.org/Mail/subject-tagging

<adrianba> +1

<AdrianHB> +1

<scribe> ACTION: Ian to create new public spec list, include WG participants to start [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-wpwg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> 'Ian' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ijacobs, ijmad).

<nicktr> +1 nickt

<manu> +1

<ShaneM> +1

TPAC 2016 planning

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.

Plan is to choose dates (Monday/Tuesday or Thursday/Friday) based on our ability to meet with other groups.

nicktr: Any strong opinions on those groups?

<manu> +1 to AdrianHB

<manu> (that chairs/staff make that determination)

<manu> it's hard to say no to any of them

<AdrianHB> I think we need a prioritized list. Happy with that set though

<manu> but we should

PROPOSED: Chairs will schedule the meeting based on goal of maximizing meetings with other groups.

Manu: Discussing with other groups is good; but we may not have a lot to say with all of them.

Nick: I prefer to bring back a proposal to the group

IJ: Sounds good

next meeting

17 March anticipate call for consensus

24 March finalize decision to publish FPWD

ShaneM: Heads up that there's a risk for some due to St Patrick's Day

NOTE: Daylight Savings Time heads up on 17 and 24 March
... the meeting will be at noon ET

(hour earlier for many in Europe)

FTF meeting

Nick: I had an action to look into FTF meeting dates
... first proposal is 27-29 June at Worldpay
... i will return to this question next week