See also: IRC log
<Ian> scribe: dlongley
<Ian> FTF meeting dates
Ian: This morning I sent out this announcement, F2F date. Taking into account a variety of constraints, scheduling, we've put the IG meeting next to the blockchain one on 1 July.
<Ian> IG FTF meeting page
Ian: Registration is now open, please register.
<Ian> Registration
Ian: Blockchain is 29-30 June. We've moved the WG meeting to London, graciously hosted by Visa Europe, thanks Brian. We've been developing the logistics and agenda portions of those pages, look forward to seeing you there, let me know if you have any questions.
dezell: We have only a few weeks before July 1, to begin building an agenda for our meeting, so state tuned for some communication in that regard.
<Ian> Add candidate topics to https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Jul2016
dezell: Thanks. It doesn't have
to be something we've talked about before but it can be, we'll
bash it out before the meeting. Any questions on the F2F?
... Regrets, I won't be able to come those dates in July. My
company shuts down first week of July. I can do it the previous
week, but not then.
<Ian> Draft IG process
dezell: After our meeting last week and listening to comments, Ian, Erik and I met on Thursday and talked again about our process and Ian has produced a new page, I sent you all a note requesting that you read through it. I think it's looking pretty good. Very different from before.
Ian: Has anyone had a chance to read and do they have comments?
<manu> I've read it lightly - no comments yet - look sgood at a high level
Ian: The optimal way for people
to do this is to look at it closely, think about what
individuals want to get out of this IG and not everything that
is covered here is everything the IG can do, the scope is
focused on how we end up turning ideas into WG draft charters,
the core of this is looking at business use cases, turn them
into charters, we will have a greater chance of success.
... The useful comments from last discussion that I hope to
have partially integrated at this time... question was raised
how do you start a topic in the IG, ... talked about ways to
frame that discussion. People have volunteered to lead an
activity, take on a project manager role and nature of project
may change based on the topic. Trying to be more explicit about
what each role should be. We've also talked about ways to
socialize ideas, talk to broader
community. What's missing ... we've broken down into three phases with starting with idea and ending with draft charter. Start with problem statement, get into use case form, next phase, given use cases (user stories), how do I figure out what the Web needs to support those stories, then lastly, given those capabilities, how do I turn missing capabilities for the Web into draft charter language.
Ian: Next up will be fleshing
those phases out. There's more to do to give people a sense on
how to get through them.
... I don't know if we have enough experience to do a template,
but this could be a model plan.
... That's our thinking and all suggestions are welcome and
that includes questions we can try to answer.
dezell: I'd ask people to focus a little bit on a what I think are strong points. Ian has added a section on initial discussion. I think this section may help guide you if you feel unsure about what to do for the meeting... if you were to make some progress on the initial discussion category that would be good for the group. If you discover we may be missing something please let us know.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about how this differs from other interest groups. Where are we diverging from existing successful or unsuccessful processes?
ShaneM: I appreciate that we're defining a process here but I'm curious about other IGs and are we following what they do, are there things they do we should avoid?
Ian: Web and TV IG is an interesting model, they've been successful in getting things into HTML5. Security IG is interesting. I don't know if there's anything in our IG that makes us unique. I think if we can come up with a useful process it would be helpful for other IGs.
dezell: I did talk to Virginie
because I was curious about their challenges. It's a horizontal
not a vertical group so there will be differences, they've
faced the same logistical challenges as us in the Security IG.
That's a bit reassuring.
... We are looking at other groups.
<Ian> {IJ will reach out to Web and TV IG chairs]
dezell: We have to talk with experts on process, we can make this useful to other people as well as this group (channeling Erik).
<evert> +1
<manu> +1 - right track
dezell: If you think we're on the right track please +1.
+1
<dezell> +1
<ShaneM> +1
<amyz> +1
<Ian> +1
<brian_> +1
<AdrianHB> +1
<todd_a> +1
<ltoth> +1
dezell: Thanks folks.
... It's very important that this process helps you feel
motivated to make progress, not demotivated because it's too
complicated.
<manu> http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/vctf/VerifiableClaimsResponses-2016-05-06.png
manu: This is just a quick update
for where we are with verifiable claims. PNG image of the
feedback so far.
... 48 responses as of Friday, I just checked a couple minutes
ago and we're up to 50 now.
... Two new respondents that will join the work,
positive.
... Feedback so far is pretty good, we've had roughly three
orgs that have said more incubation is necessary and they'd be
pretty strongly against the work. Only one filled out the form
the other two did not. So three "don't start the work" type
comments and around 48 very positive comments out of 50
total.
... That's good news, it shows we're on message as far as
problem statement is concerned, if people have access to IRC if
you can open that image and zoom in in your browser. At the top
are all the orgs that have filled the form out.
<ShaneM> ha!
manu: We do have data on what
each org said specifically, so we can dig into that if we want
in the future. Scrolling down to some of the charts about half
way down, we're showing strong support for the problem
statement, the goals proposed in the charter, strong support
for scope of work and deliverables, fairly strong support for
use cases but it's bit a more nuanced. People want to see more,
but we narrowed it down knowing people would do that.
... Even with that small set people are very supportive of that
set. Around 18 companies have said they are W3C members or
would become, 7 orgs said they would become W3C members if this
work were to start.
... I feel that the feedback on the proposed charter is very
positive even the comments that weren't very supportive were
comments for changes we believe we could make a good chunk of
them. Now that we have the data, looking at next steps.
Ian: Thanks manu and thanks for preparing that. Can you say more about responders from implementers of the future specifications? Less about people who might use it but actual software implementers.
manu: I think we've counted five
orgs that would deploy some form of the technology.
... The first is, how many people would implement the data
format, probably around 10. They've said specifically if we use
the specs in the Credentials CG, they'd implement those in
their technology platforms.
... Two of them are multi-billion dollar multi-nationals.
... A question around protocol because that's not in the
charter now-- we didn't propose it and that work is fairly
nascent in its stages.
Ian: Could you send me details about the implementers that you are hearing from?
Manu: Yes, that's part of the complete package we're putting together. That gets into the next topic.
<Ian> [When I say "implementer" I am not referring only to browser vendors]
dezell: I wanted to add that I think two things last week, was at Connexus conference -- lots of interesting in verifiable claims. Some orgs that are like "fort knox" for getting into their website. There could be interest for people to use browsers for this or for third party widgets ... allowing for innovation, without requiring browser folks to do the updates themselves.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to underscore that very important vendor point.
dezell: I wanted to offer that as an idea, I'm interested to hear about the path forward ... important for the IG. We need to figure out how to bring it to the next stage.
manu: I think you raise a really important point. The definition of implementer I was using previously was people who would use the data format in a product. The only thing we're proposing is a data model and potentially multiple data formats. How to integrate it in is open question. Credentials CG clearly has an idea for how it would work, but other technologies exist, SAML, OpenIDConnect, each one of these communities are dealing with protocol and we've
tried to not get involved with protocol.
manu: Browser vendors also interested in protocol, got feedback from them and they were assuming browser vendors would have to implement for it to be useful and I think that's a misconception, not required in phase I. We agree it would be great in the future for it to be implemented in browsers, but we need to incubate outside of browsers first in phase I. There are orgs that have said this will have a positive impact on their org ... this first set of wor
k, when we say implementer we don't say browser vendor, even though we'd like them to participate, we really mean orgs that some kind of verifiable claim portion of their product and they want data format and syntax interop, etc.
manu: I think the VCTF has met
several times and refined the path forward, we'll meet again
tomorrow. There's a soft close on the feedback, we have 50
comments, we will apply the ones we think we can to charter,
use cases, and FAQ to make sure we're taking into consideration
people's concerns and do some explaining,etc.
... We're going to clean up the documents we have right now and
then we were asked to produce some other docs like a one page
primer for W3C AC reps to read so they know what we're trying
to do ... a lot of them said we gave them too much info and
they don't have time to review it all. So we need a one pager.
The other doc is that a couple of AC reps said that they'd like
to understand what the architecture looks like. What are we
proposing as an archite
cture so they can take that back to their experts and see what already exists, etc. We don't think it already exists.
manu: We also want a starter
specification that has buy in from multiple orgs that could be
put into the process. Some even said that we shouldn't have any
open questions in that proposal. If there was an open question
about how a particular technology would work they'd vote
against -- but I think that's a controversial position.
... Work is under way to do all this, that would be the package
we'd present to the AC if the IG feels we're ready to do that.
That's the plan forward, any questions?
... And the list of implementers which is what Ian had asked
for. So 4 new docs we're going to generate, 1-2 pages.
dezell: Today you're presenting what the results are so far, attempting to get some gut reaction from the IG "good" or "things missing", the plan I heard is to produce a one-pager and go ahead and approach select individuals again. Is there a plan for bringing this to the IG for a vote?
manu: Plan is to take docs we have right now and clean up based on feedback. Produce 4 new documents that were asked for in the survey results, one of them is the document you mentioned. As far as whether or not we're going to bring this to a vote, it's up to the IG. My hope is yes we would, but only after that content is produced and reviewed.
dezell: So no immediate next step for the IG. We have an decision to make which is to give our voice to this work .... two steps, decide if we want to decide and second is to create a decision. I think we should decide and I hope everyone is listening closely and think we are on a good track. Would it help if we ask for people to ask for -1/+1 for things going ok?
Ian: Two things -- Manu, I know that one of the pieces of the plan is to go back to the interviewees ... and can you give a summary of the feedback from them?
<Ian> (How many interviewees were there? How many responded to this ping to fill out the survey?)
manu: Yes. We pinged everyone.
All the interviewees were asked to fill out of the form. 4-5
responded very positively. One of them responded very
positively but said that we're assuming a user centric design
and we shouldn't, a server centric design might be the best to
do. We understand why that person has that opinion and it's
very contrary to the rest of the group. An outlier but an
interesting one.
... A couple of the other folks just said they don't have time
to review it. We pinged them 3 times, but they've said they are
too busy. A couple of the other interviewees but don't have
enough bandwidth to review and still have same concerns but
they don't have bandwidth to check to see if we addressed their
concerns.
... At least half of them are fairly happy with the direction
we're going in, of the other half, 80% said they just don't
have time and 20% didnt' agree with the direction of the work
but we understand why.
Ian: If you can add that detail
-- so when people want to know about it that would be
handy.
... A good question for the group would be... presuming the
question will be put to the group to support this moving
forward, what do they feel they'd need additionally to have an
informed viewpoint when the question is put to the group?
... I think that would help us concretely make sure we have
everything we need when the question is asked.
... I think we would have heard objections if people didn't
think we were heading in the right discussion, the next big
thing would be whether the IG supports the work but let's hear
now if anyone needs anything else before we ask that later.
dezell: Anyone want to state an opinion right now?
<Erik> I need non-repudiation use cases but Manu and I have already talked about this.
dezell: I think I should take an action to set up a short doodle poll ...
<manu> Erik, I think we have that covered in the work - you'll see it in the proposed spec.
Ian: I'm not sure what that is that you're talking about.
dezell: It's the same thing you asked but we're not getting any feedback. It would be "what do you need" with some specific categories.
Ian: I would think just having made the request now ... we can leave it to the participants to make suggestions, I don't think anything else is necessary. Maybe send a mail to the list.
dezell: If we don't have any more
discussion, I'd like to request that people review the
minutes.
... Please reflect on this and let us know if you're prepared
or what's missing.
... The second thing is a request to the IG to help us get
started with planning our meeting for July 1st. That's the day
before the July 4 holiday so it's important to get your plane
tickets soon.
... I had a question for Ian, which is ... If attendance at the
IG for the blockchain meeting could be a foregone
conclusion.
<manu> +1 to co-locate w/ Blockchain meeting.
dezell: The blockchain is
something has been on our list for a while and co-locating is a
reasonable thing for us to do.
... Please make plans as early as possible.
... If you could please, first of all, make plans, and the
second thing, would you please send us your top 4 topics on the
list for the F2F. They dont' have to topics that you're
volunteering to lead, they could be topics you don't know
anything about and you want someone to talk about. No rules in
the email, just get the planning jump started and adding them
to the wiki page is also very welcome. Any other topics for
today?
... Thank you for the kind attention. It's not clear if we'll
have a meeting next Monday or not.
... Depending on how our planning starts it might be good to
give it a rest. I do appreciate it, talk to you all soon,
thanks.
