15:57:33 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 15:57:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/17-wpwg-irc 15:57:35 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:57:35 Zakim has joined #wpwg 15:57:37 Zakim, this will be 15:57:37 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:57:38 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 15:57:38 Date: 17 March 2016 15:57:53 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160317 15:59:17 present+ shepazu 15:59:18 present+ rouslan 15:59:22 present+ ShaneM 15:59:26 present+ Ian 15:59:26 present+ dlongley 15:59:29 present- shepazu 16:00:14 present+ Manu 16:01:28 Present+ zkoch 16:01:34 present+ dwim 16:02:04 regrets+ DavidE 16:02:10 present+ shepazu 16:03:06 nick_tr has joined #wpwg 16:03:11 present+ NickTR 16:03:20 zakim, who is here 16:03:20 nick_tr, you need to end that query with '?' 16:03:23 zakim, who is here? 16:03:23 Present: rouslan, ShaneM, Ian, dlongley, Manu, zkoch, dwim, shepazu, NickTR 16:03:24 present+ dlehn 16:03:26 On IRC I see nick_tr, Zakim, RRSAgent, rouslan, yaso_, yaso, zkoch, AdrianHB, ShaneM, hober, shepazu, collier-matthew, dwim_, davidillsley, adrianba, schuki, mkwst, manu, dlongley, 16:03:26 ... slightlyoff, dlehn, Ian, wseltzer, trackbot 16:03:31 Hi, manu, I'm Dongwoo Joshua Im, from Samsung 16:03:36 present+ nicktr 16:03:37 Ian has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160317 16:03:47 Welcome, Dongwoo 16:03:53 DJackson has joined #wpwg 16:04:04 present+ DJackson 16:04:09 nick_tr: thanks. 16:04:41 CyrilV has joined #wpwg 16:04:45 MattS has joined #wpwg 16:04:48 Present+ Cyril Vignet 16:04:56 present+ MattS 16:04:58 kriske has joined #wpwg 16:05:04 scribe: Ian 16:05:29 -> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160317 16:06:44 Topic: Regarding Call fo Consensus to FPWD 16:06:52 nick_tr: Today is the day we said we would issue the CFC 16:06:59 ...but there has been discussion about the nature of FPWD 16:07:14 ....Ian, would you be willing to describe the purpose of FPWD? 16:07:15 q+ 16:08:16 ack Ian 16:08:57 https://www.w3.org/2016/03/15-wpwg-blog.txt 16:10:16 q+ 16:10:18 q? 16:10:24 ack schuki 16:10:24 zakim, who is here? 16:10:26 Present: rouslan, ShaneM, Ian, dlongley, Manu, zkoch, dwim, shepazu, NickTR, dlehn, DJackson, Cyril, Vignet, MattS 16:10:26 On IRC I see kriske, MattS, CyrilV, DJackson, nick_tr, Zakim, RRSAgent, rouslan, yaso_, yaso, zkoch, AdrianHB, ShaneM, hober, shepazu, collier-matthew, dwim_, davidillsley, 16:10:26 ... adrianba, schuki, mkwst, manu, dlongley, slightlyoff, dlehn, Ian, wseltzer, trackbot 16:10:31 ack shepazu 16:10:35 IJ: FPWD is a signal we will be looking for review on this early work 16:10:47 is trying to track on IRC 16:10:49 ...blog post is a piece of framing that story 16:11:27 doug: In addition, we may want to do something like a report to people (e.g., a PDF) to help frame the status 16:11:40 ...so that people understand the context in which we are publishing the documents. 16:11:42 q+ 16:11:47 present+ AdrianHB-via-IRC 16:11:53 q? 16:12:26 nick_tr: I wanted the staff contacts to give perspective because, speaking as someone new to w3c but longtime in financial services, I think it would be unusual to publish a draft specification in this state of maturity. 16:12:34 ...that's caused some angst in my own organization. 16:12:40 q+ to ask nick_tr about concerns 16:12:42 ...it would be good to hear from others as well. 16:13:20 ...I get a strong impression that people who come from regulatory specifications or card scheme specs, which only break cover into public status at a good degree of maturity, that there is a gap between our expectation of how mature it should be, and its current state. 16:13:23 q+ 16:13:30 ack Matts 16:13:42 MattS: Question - this group is a public group...anyone can review, etc. 16:13:48 ...how does it get out to people ? 16:13:59 ...what communication are we expecting to do? 16:14:03 ....how will we handle it? 16:14:11 ...we seem to be opening more issues than closing them. 16:14:24 ...how will we marshall the feedback? 16:15:19 Ian: We have multiple ways to do outreach - email newsletters, social web, etc. 16:15:30 Ian: We've been asked not to do broad outreach by WG. 16:16:23 Ian: We will most likely have a webinar for folks like MAG - open to other suggestions for getting word out in a scalable fashion - talking to associations seems like a good idea. Debit network alliance. ETA, NRF, etc. 16:16:26 q+ 16:16:26 q? 16:16:40 Ian: I welcome all help in doing that. 16:16:47 zakim, agenda? 16:16:47 I see nothing on the agenda 16:17:15 Ian: How do we handle feedback? It is true that W3C process includes accountability requirements that we be responsive to feedback - Chairs play role in that so it doesn't become a DoS attack - pointing to issues that have been raised/closed. There is some chair training to do. 16:17:32 q? 16:17:49 Ian: We have set the expectation that we are expecting to publish before we publish these issues. We spend time resolving issues to mature spec, we don't want to do that, we publish updates along the way. (Much of this happens in parallel) 16:18:18 Ian: The mechanics of handling input - mailing list, github PRs, not /everyone/ can contribute due to IPR restrictions, but everyone can comment (including the general public). 16:19:18 q+ 16:19:19 q+ 16:19:20 MattS: Good coverage, thanks - my impression - anyone can raise issue on public github repo - they can't do PRs unless they pass IPR, but anyone can raise an issue? 16:19:35 q? 16:19:44 NickTR: Yes, that's the case but also can be done via public mailing list. 16:19:44 Q. Can anyone raise an issue? 16:19:46 A. Yes 16:19:51 Q. Can anyone raise an issue via email? 16:19:53 A. Yes 16:19:59 Q. Can anyone raise an issue on GitHub 16:20:06 A. Ian doesn't know mechanically, but in theory yes 16:20:26 as long as they have a Github account, I think the answer is "Yes", Ian. 16:20:30 ack ShaneM 16:20:30 ShaneM, you wanted to ask nick_tr about concerns 16:20:32 [Thanks Manu] 16:20:33 q- 16:20:37 shepazu: Anyone can publicly comment on the spec. 16:20:45 ShaneM: Nick, you raised some concerns about the immaturity of the document 16:21:08 ...and the perception by some...my folllow-up question is: would that level of maturity cause people to look at it askance? 16:21:21 nick_tr: Great question...the question is "yes"..I think that is direct cause for concern. 16:21:27 ...there was some conversation at the SFO meeting on this 16:21:55 ..my concern is definitely that, because many of the people we will reach out to review to (or others who become aware) may look at it and see a lot of questions 16:21:57 q+ 16:22:04 ...and say "this is not the kind of spec I expect to see" 16:22:23 ...so gap in expectations between how w3c works and how financial services industry works 16:22:26 q+ to ask that we get around to talking about what we're going to publish before we run out of time. 16:22:41 ack CyrilV 16:22:49 CyrilV: I understand what you said about concern about maturity of document 16:23:01 ...but sometimes we have to wait a lot longer to get a mature document. 16:23:54 ...I want to clarify that the call for consensus does not assume that the issues are resolved. 16:24:01 ...bpce can cope with the level of maturity. 16:24:13 ..and could deal with publication as long as later we can say "we don't agree with the content" 16:24:47 q? 16:24:56 Ian: The call for consensus is only about publishing a first public working draft, there are still issues open, people can object to technical content as document evolves. The document will state clearly that content hasn't been agreed to. 16:25:00 (Ian, you could emphasize this in your blog post… that we are still building consensus) 16:25:04 Ian: We are just asking to publish it w/ open issues. 16:25:05 ack nick_tr 16:25:06 q+ to add that publication shows momentum 16:25:09 ack nick_tr 16:25:42 nick_tr: I think I have come to the same conclusion that it's really important to communicate that the FPWD is an invitation for wider review, more discussion, and more issues potentially 16:26:05 ...our charter sets expectation that there are many more months of work 16:26:15 q+ 16:26:15 q? 16:26:22 ...in response to a question from MattS....he observed that right now we are opening more issues than we are closing 16:26:33 ...and as a group we have not spent a lot of time discussing a lot of the issues in detail. 16:26:43 daren has joined #wpwg 16:26:53 ...it can be challenging to stay on top of the issues list, but (as Chairs) that's our job 16:27:14 ...as part of FPWD, then we will return to weekly (or bi-weekly depending on group's will) to really tackle specific issues 16:27:16 +1 to that 16:27:21 +1 for tackling issues on the call 16:27:38 q? 16:27:39 ...the quid-pro-quo is that members in the WG help us resolve them (e.g., by people writing concrete proposals to discuss) 16:27:49 ack rouslan 16:28:13 rouslan: I think that publishing a WD is a good way to invite feedback from the broader audience, and even to start testing early implementations 16:28:22 ...the early review is good to reveal blind spots 16:28:34 +1 to what Rouslan is saying. 16:28:40 +1 as well 16:28:43 ..if we think that the industry will be put off by the "rare" state of the specs, I think we can alleviate issues through clear status comms 16:28:51 +1 from me as well 16:28:52 ..I think we need to keep up momentum, but thoughtfully. 16:28:52 q- 16:28:54 ack Ian 16:28:54 Ian, you wanted to add that publication shows momentum 16:29:08 We may want to point out in the "Status of the Document" section - language specifically for regulators. 16:30:00 Ian: There is no bright line to what "good progress and work ethic" and what is "reckless". The fact that we have materials to look at is valuable - Samsung joined the WG last night - Facebook's participation in face-to-face is a good... all because they see the stuff is moving. 16:30:57 Ian: We are saying "We need you to pay attention and start moving" now - as comms person, would love to make sure we frame this properly, but this is ordinary stuff in W3C - this is normal. 16:31:06 q? 16:31:11 Ian: We want to communicate the ordinary-ness of this situation to those that are not used to it. 16:31:49 (I wonder if we should link to examples of a FPWD that changed dramatically before becoming a Recommendation) 16:31:56 ack manu 16:31:56 manu, you wanted to ask that we get around to talking about what we're going to publish before we run out of time. 16:32:00 Ian: I want to hear really concrete suggestions - how can we do that? How do we reveal blind spots, we can assuage some of this concerns. 16:32:39 manu: I think that the discussion so far has been good...as Ian pointed out, this is a regular thing that goes on at W3C...a specific comment is that in the status of the doc we call these things out ...we might want to address regulators and financial industry in the status industry. 16:33:17 ...we might want to say something like "we are releasing these specs sooner than one might see in the financial services industry to get feedback" 16:33:39 maybe we can say: we've done work from our perspectives -- and now we want feedback from *your* perspectives, so we can incorporate it all and build something good 16:33:46 dlongley++ 16:33:47 Topic: Which specs 16:33:53 nick_tr: Four candidates 16:33:55 -> https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/specs/paymentrequest.html 16:34:03 q+ to suggesting an order and not bunch them together. 16:34:07 -> https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/specs/architecture.html 16:34:08 * Payment request API 16:34:10 * Archtiecture 16:34:15 -> https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/specs/method-identifiers.html 16:34:16 * Payment Method Identifiers 16:34:19 * Basic Card Specs 16:34:25 -> https://w3c.github.io/browser-payment-api/specs/basic-card-payment.html 16:34:28 q+ to suggest we handle payment request API first - as I think everyone wants to publish that one - take them one at a time. 16:34:46 ack manu 16:34:46 manu, you wanted to suggesting an order and not bunch them together. and to suggest we handle payment request API first - as I think everyone wants to publish that one - take them 16:34:49 ... one at a time. 16:34:50 ack manu 16:35:07 Manu: I think we should take them 1 at a time. 16:35:28 q+ 16:35:59 +1 to what Nick said. 16:36:30 Ian: Our charter says we can do calls for consensus - people not on the call should participate in the decision - call for consensus will go out. 16:37:03 q? 16:37:05 Ian: We shouldn't use the time to pre-determine which specs will be published or not - we should use the time to get a sense of where people are and what could be done over the next week for call for consensus to make it more likely we'll have more consensus to publish. 16:37:06 ack Ian 16:37:23 q+ to note that I don't want to put us in a situation where there are a bunch of -1s, when the editor's could have done something to prevent that. 16:37:37 q+ to indicate my support and concerns. 16:37:43 Ian: Here it might be more useful to hear from people what would make them most comfortable. 16:38:02 https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160317 16:38:34 Ian: People will be asked to comment on each of the documents, chairs will gather the data. 16:38:41 VincentK has joined #wpwg 16:39:16 q+ 16:39:16 Ian: What can we do to get to consensus to publish? 16:39:22 ack manu 16:39:22 manu, you wanted to note that I don't want to put us in a situation where there are a bunch of -1s, when the editor's could have done something to prevent that. 16:39:23 q- manu 16:39:26 q+ 16:39:28 ack rouslan 16:39:28 rouslan, you wanted to indicate my support and concerns. 16:39:44 rouslan: I think Manu is right that payment request API should be published as FPWD 16:39:55 NickTR: I think Manu is concerned that we get to the end of the CfC and find a bunch of objections that we could have prevented. 16:40:02 ..for basic card payment and PMIs, I think they help to bootstrap the ecosystem and work well with the API spec...so I would +1 those 16:40:13 ...regarding architecture, I am more lukewarm...if people feel it's important, I'm ok as well 16:40:15 ack MattS 16:40:42 MattS: My view on the specs is that I'm pretty comfortable with them if the blog post is specific about what we want people to comment. 16:40:55 ...I want we want to call out more vocally security and privacy 16:41:20 q? 16:41:20 ...it would be good if we could groom the issues list and list them in the post 16:41:25 q+ 16:41:29 q+ to focus on one spec at a time, PaymentRequest API and what it would take to get it to FPWD. 16:42:17 matts: I would like to agree on our priorities by looking at the issues list 16:42:25 present+ 16:42:31 ...as a group we've got 50 or so, and a good proportion are in security and privacy 16:42:35 ...happy to work with IJ on revision 16:42:38 zakim, who is here? 16:42:38 Present: rouslan, ShaneM, Ian, dlongley, Manu, zkoch, dwim, shepazu, NickTR, dlehn, DJackson, Cyril, Vignet, MattS, AdrianHB-via-IRC, VincentK 16:42:40 On IRC I see VincentK, daren, kriske, MattS, CyrilV, nick_tr, Zakim, RRSAgent, rouslan, zkoch, AdrianHB, ShaneM, hober, shepazu, collier-matthew, dwim_, davidillsley, adrianba, 16:42:40 ... schuki, mkwst, manu, dlongley, slightlyoff, dlehn, Ian, wseltzer, trackbot 16:42:48 ...one other thing regarding statements about flows...let's invite assistance 16:42:52 q? 16:43:02 ack Ian 16:43:28 Ian: I'll give an example of the sort of thing that would be helpful to hear from people - everyone should come to the queue to say stuff like this 16:44:34 Ian: I think we should publish the four specs that led to changes, some changes were made, empty payment method spec to two proposals, one is URI-based one is not, I liked the state of that one - great branching point. For architecture, I integrated a bunch of what was in the wiki is in the spec, more comfortable with that, with wiki - keep it as spearate document", should not be part of API spec - basic card spec 16:44:46 q? 16:45:01 ack CyrilV 16:45:02 Ian: We haven't talked to card companies yet - we should put a stake in the ground, I recognize there is a lot of work to do - resolve issues - we should publish all four of them. 16:45:03 q+ 16:45:19 q+ 16:45:20 CyrilV: My view is...if we publish 1 we should publish 4 since they are a system that go together 16:45:33 ...it would be difficult to review them if treated independently. 16:45:40 ... do we also publish the issues list? 16:45:50 nick_tr: Majority of the issues are now included in the text of the docs 16:45:53 CyrilV: Ok, fine for me 16:46:02 ack manu 16:46:02 manu, you wanted to focus on one spec at a time, PaymentRequest API and what it would take to get it to FPWD. 16:46:23 Manu: I request that we publish payment request API as a FPWD, but only after that issues have been integrated. 16:46:34 ...I would be -1 to publishing them unless it pulls in the pull requests. 16:46:46 ...the rest of the docs I don't feel we have enough review on 16:46:48 q+ 16:46:56 ...to meet the bare minimum of what the group agrees on 16:47:11 ...e.g., the PMI spec just pulled in a pull request 12 hours ago that vastly changed the spec. 16:47:16 ..I'm concerned that people haven't read the spec. 16:47:21 ...we are saying "just publish it anyway" 16:47:22 q+ 16:47:26 +1 - I didn't see that had happened 16:47:30 (That material was available already) 16:47:50 manu: Re architecture, discussions happening 16:48:15 ...so I don't think we should publish that one...should be integrated into front matter of payment api spec 16:48:26 ..regarding basic card ...it's only for legacy pull cards 16:48:47 ...we've had no input from major card brands....I think we should ask them for feedback before we push it out there 16:48:56 q? 16:49:13 ...I would be fine for publishing the arch materials into the payment request API 16:49:34 ack shepazu 16:49:48 shepazu: I am fine with publishing docs as they stand 16:50:12 ...am sensitive to need for people to understand how they work together 16:50:19 ..and see publishing all four as helpful 16:50:43 I'd like far more review on the "new" specs before we publish them; Architecture, Payment Method Identifiers, and Basic Card Payment. 16:50:55 +1 to shepazu - publish one, wait on the other three. 16:51:07 ack zkoch 16:51:09 ack me 16:51:25 zkoch: I support publishing all the specs...for momentum and feedback 16:51:39 ...for the payment request ... it's not clear to me that all the issues need to be in the spec 16:51:42 q+ to note he said "pull requests that are issues" 16:51:45 ...we are starting to go through and comment on them 16:51:51 ...I'm not sure all are merge-worthy at this point 16:51:59 ...we have a concrete proposal in the spec 16:52:04 q? 16:52:12 ...we don't need an issue to say "there could be other ways"...we need concrete proposals. 16:52:24 ....for PMI...the changes are two concrete proposals 16:52:39 q+ to not that he'd rather reference as an Editor's Draft than FPWD. 16:52:53 ...for basic card payments, we need a story to tell people how it will work, I see this as a way to motivate them to come to the table. They are aware of the specs 16:53:02 ack dlongley 16:53:09 ..they have seen them and have not commented yet, so this could be a useful signal to bring them into the conversation. 16:53:31 dlongley: If it's a good idea to put the proposals in the draft specs, it's good to have all the issue markers in the spec. 16:53:49 ...the status of the document should be very clear that it's incomplete and we are asking for other perspectives 16:54:04 ...regarding PMI, I didn't see the new text yet 16:54:04 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/42#issuecomment-197540319 16:54:24 ...I feel like if we have an arch document, it should have a wider scope. 16:54:27 q+ to make sure we aren't being desperate about showing "forward progress" when we aren't actually making that much forward progress. 16:54:30 (But that's not the purpose of this doc.) 16:54:42 dlongley: I think we are going to have more than one API that works with payment apps 16:54:52 +1 16:54:57 (IJ mentioned on that topic that the docs can continue to evolve) 16:55:07 dlongley: The arch doc can tie various pieces together 16:55:12 We shouldn't publish something that's going to be integrated into another document 16:55:20 q? 16:55:21 ...if we want an overview of how payment request API works that should be in that doc itself 16:55:22 ack manu 16:55:22 manu, you wanted to note he said "pull requests that are issues" and to not that he'd rather reference as an Editor's Draft than FPWD. and to make sure we aren't being desperate 16:55:25 ... about showing "forward progress" when we aren't actually making that much forward progress. 16:55:42 Yes, that’s what I was referring to as well 16:55:46 manu: To clarilfy a comment on Zach's comment...I want to ensure all issue markers 16:55:53 ...minimum bar is to have issue markers 16:55:55 ...before FPWD 16:56:07 ...I am concerned about the "we need to show forward progress" 16:56:15 ...if we are not making forward progress 16:56:30 ..it is true we have made progress on the API if we have concerns registered 16:56:35 ...I don't feel it's true for the other documents 16:56:37 I don’t think I’m in agreement that all of those issues as PRs need to be merged in. Some of them, yes, happy to. But others (e.g., 61, 73) don’t need to be 16:56:49 but we don't need agreement 16:56:50 ...we are not actually demonstrating forward progress...we are doing the opposite.. 16:56:56 there isn't agreement on the options in the payment method identifier spec 16:57:09 but we're putting those in there ... so let's do the same thing for the other issues. 16:57:21 and get feedback on everything. 16:57:25 q? 16:57:31 manu: I have a strong feeling that some people who are saying let's publish all four have not done a thorough review...minimum bar is to read these specs. 16:57:53 q+ to note that if reviews haven't happened, we should figure out why. 16:58:04 zakim, close the queue 16:58:04 ok, nick_tr, the speaker queue is closed 16:58:24 q+ to note that in other WGs, we don't publish until we get X thorough reviews in. 16:58:51 IJ: We have invited feedback for weeks. People have been invited to review them for weeks. 16:58:57 ..and the specs have changed during this time. 16:59:07 Manu: If people are not reviewing the docs, we need to find out why it's not happening. 16:59:18 notes that issues have been raised (as PRs) and they are not yet in the specs 16:59:38 (People can use the week to review during the call for consensus) 17:00:04 nick_tr: I am hearing mostly consensus for the API, and softer support for the other three. 17:00:17 nick_tr: The formal CFC will list all 4 specs and people can comment on each one 17:00:36 nick_tr: I urge Manu and Zach to work together to address the pull request question 17:00:44 ...I'll send a formal mail later tonight my time 17:00:46 Topic: Next meeting 17:00:48 24 March 17:00:51 q? 17:00:51 (NO MEETING 17 MARCH) 17:00:57 q- 17:01:02 ??? today is 17 march 17:01:07 DOH 17:01:12 Next meeting: 31 March 17:01:13 Can we request specific feedback to the Blog too if this is the framing for the specs we release 17:01:17 SGTM, thanks! 17:01:18 (NO MEETING 24 March) 17:01:38 (Yes, please send comments on blog post to me!) 17:01:47 rrsagent, make minutes 17:01:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/17-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 17:01:51 rrsagent, set logs public 19:15:00 Zakim has left #wpwg