Web Payments Interest Group Teleconference

<scribe> scribe: Ian

IG Process

See https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/WebPaymentIGProcess

<manu> Ian: I don't think much more of an intro is required, we introduced this last week - asked folks to review it - asked folks to make comments by mail or wiki.

IJ: Does anybody on the call have comments?

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to comment

(Shane read it)

Manu: I read through it and noticed that the model plan was filled out a bit.
... that aligns with my suggestion of a checklist
... I think that filling out the model plan would be where my interest lies.
... one of the things that I see missing that I've heard a lot in the past couple of weeks with VCTF
... when people pointed out that work had been incubated in a CG, requests shifted to "where is the draft spec"?
... and then the next question was "who are the implementers?"

dezell: Erik and Ian and I met with someone from Bloomberg to talk in general about process and operations improvements.
... although this process is grounded in use cases, there are some pre-use case needs for idea generation

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that Digital Signatures/Trust is missing from Candidate Topics.

manu: Missing digital signatures and trust
... digital signature has been shunted off by WPWG
... merchants need to ensure that offer is unmodified

IJ: Trust is a social outcome and I would not add to the list.
... digital sigs should be addressed in the security activity

<manu> Ian: Trust is not something I'd add to the list - trust is a social outcome not a technical activity. On digital signatures: I feel like this group is not the right place to discuss that - Security Activity should talk about that - we may perceive need for digital signatures - could you say in more detail what you mean?

Manu: I think it would be liaising with the WPWG and the Security Activity

IJ: If the WPWG is the entity to go to the Security Activity, what is the IG activity?

Manu: It hasn't come up in the WG

(It has: see https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/141)

Manu: We have "punted" in the WG.
... I think the WG has punted on the security aspect (payment method specific)
... but that bypasses the issue

<manu> Ian: There has been discussion about punting to payment method.

Manu: How does that mechanism integrate with the larger ecosystem.

IJ: I would like the IG to have a chance at success. What is the concrete topic for the IG?

Manu: Digital signatures on payment messages

dezell: This relates to the thing I was mentioning "getting to use cases"
... one issue is when a topic seems it should be discussed elsewhere, at which point operationally we lose track of it
... so part of this discussion is to track things that migrate to other groups (e.g., security activity)
... we still have an interest in it

<manu> +1 to track how issues develop across various groups.

<manu> (issues that affect us)

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about Merchant Offers as Candidate Topics.

manu: Another thing we have talked about in the CG is "offers"
... one reason that they are interesting (to merchants) is that it allows them to publish products for sale in machine-readable format.
... to help discovery

dezell: Loyalty and coupons took the place in the candidate topics

<manu> Ian: I'd like to have more people read the IG process proposal before we have a more substantive discussion. I'd only like to adopt this w/ an indication that people have read it. Thank you, Manu for reading it, I think others should do so as well - focus on model plan too, we shouldn't make any decisions before people have read the proposal.

Mid-2016 Year Logistics

Update: We are still working on this; should have an update this week

<manu> +1 to meet immediately after WPWG meeting (or immediately before).

dezell: Tentative date of FTF meeting is Friday 15 July

<manu> Ian: We have two offers, both in London, the Chairs and I are trying to finalize dates/locations.

<manu> Ian: I understood we were making the decision and people would register at that point.

<kriske> +1 to meet immediately after WPWG meeting

<manu> Ian: In terms of WG, you would send out an email once we make a decision - or are we going to finalize the tenative date and send an email out?

<manu> Ian: I believe the Chairs are going to make a decision about the date and get people to register this week.

<ShaneM> +1 to just doing it

<manu> Ian: Ripple wants to hold and Interledger meeting in London right after the F2F meeting.

<manu> Ian: This has to do w/ availability of space.

<manu> Ian to David: I sent email this morning to the Chairs about meetings hoping to finalize the dates this week.

Summary:

(TENTATIVE)

13-14 July: WG

15 July: IG

16 July: Interledger

Following week: IETF in Berlin

Likely Blockchain Workshop is end of June

scribe: stay tuned for the official announcement

VCTF update

Manu: We met last week on our work plan
... the idea is to take the CG documents and put forward spec proposals
... include that as an item we "take to the AC"
... we are cleaning up the charter and use cases
... I failed to ping individuals last week
... we have 38 replies
... we would like 10-15 more
... we would like to have final numbers on the questionnaire by next week

Next IG teleconf

IJ: Would people like to volunteer to review the process thing?

Next meeting: 9 May

<manu> Ian: Great moment to say word about process - I don't think IGs prioritization is the most important thing, I think it's more important for people to champion topics.

<manu> Ian: Champions may be more interested in prioritizing other use cases.

<manu> Ian: People may want to invest time in building plan - model plan could be based on that plan, I've been done some work on Loyalty/Coupons, may return to that in a little bit. I don't think we should start w/ prioritization.

dezell: We look for champions to drive topics.

manu: I agree that champions should drive topics ... but I'm a bit hesitant to champion a topic that nobody is interested in.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask how we know if folks will be interested?

-> >https://www.w3.org/2016/Talks/ij_coupons/?full#Cover

<manu> Ian: I don't think we should answer those questions in the abstract, we should do it in the case of a concrete proposal - industry needs, etc. Example of a starting point, this presentation on coupon interoperability was an introduction to the topic. I asked for a show of hands when we discussed it in March. There were 4-5 people in IG for next steps on the topic. That's one way to gauge interest.

IJ: The way to drive interest is by people championing work

dezell: I agree with IJ's perspective
... it shows that work is required before use cases

ManU: Start with a pitch

<manu> Ian: Yes, good point. I will add to the wiki - use cases will typically be derived from a review of industry needs or activities.

<manu> Ian: I will add something that says - in the plan - it is helpful before proposing use cases to do a short presentation (or something of the sort)

[Thanks!]