See also: IRC log
<Ian> all set
<dezell> scribenick: dlongley
dezell: I think we have three
more meetings before F2F.
... Any other requests for agenda items?
none
dezell: Manu and I talked about this a little last week. There have been some extracurricular activities in the group but now circulating back around.
<manu> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/
Manu: There's a page here, link
in IRC, this page has been updated to list all the material
that we're preparing for the upcoming F2F meeting.
... All of this material is the result of either work going on
in CCG for 2+ years and approved by VCTF, or it's material that
has been produced by the VCTF as a result of the interviews and
surveys over the past 6 months. These docs represent a proposal
for the W3C membership to take on the VC work and backing data
to show that we've done our due diligence on the work.
... Looking at that page, not every link resolves right now, we
have a couple of links that are still being actively edited and
worked on. I'm going to go down the list of links to summarize
each doc.
... One of the things that a number of respondents to the
survey asked us to do is condense information down for W3C AC
Reps specifically. We had cut it down and they said it was
still too much and they wanted a couple of one page
overviews.
... We have tried to boil this down to two documents that have
to read along with a number of other supporting documents for
people that want to read it.
<manu> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/
manu: If you look at the top of
this doc, we have something called a VC Primer, draft out this
week we hope, intro talks about VC from a W3C standardization
perspective, for people never exposed before. Second doc is a
charter that outlines the work we intend to do. As of yesterday
the charter includes all feedback to date. Includes surveys,
expert interviews, etc.
... Charter is more or less done you can read now and get idea
of what it's about.
... Rest of documentation on that page is just supporting
document. Architecture doc, some AC reps asked for that, keep
in mind this Arch is a long term vision not what the WG may end
up doing to start. When we told the AC reps the Arch wasn't for
the first WG revision they wanted it anyway.
... Doc showing consensus on what we're doing, third doc is
showing support for the work. This is to show people that 43
orgs are very in favor of the work getting started, noted some
concerns from other orgs. We have an implementors summary,
preliminary commitments from companies that will use this in
their verticals.
<Erik> Manu "Proposed Verifiable Claims Data Model Specification (23 pages) - The input specification that the Verifiable Claims Working Group will attempt to standardize." link is broken
manu: FAQ, etc.
... And use cases, which is a very focused list of 6 main use
cases.
... So the reason we're putting all this documentation together
before the WPIG F2F is because there's going to be a solid ask
of the group. "Does the WPIG believe that this is the right
direction to go and is the IG willing to stand behind this
work, back this work and try to take it to W3C membership for a
vote?" If the answer to that is "yes" we have to figure out how
to do that, if "no" we have to figure out why there are
objections.
... Any questions/concerns/comments?
<Erik> 1 concern. Please fix the broken links
dezell: I'm stating these things for the record. You have talked to a lot of people and some of those people initially had concerns and I have heard more than one person say it would be nice to know if anyone has changed their minds over the course of the discussion. Have you noted those in your demonstration of support?
manu: We haven't. The ones that have been convinced, the people that have changed their mind have gone from being ambivalent or sitting on the fence to being convinced the work should be done. The people who have been concerned about the work (only two have been actively opposed), the ones concerned about the work ... when we revised everything and asked for feedback, we sent 4 emails over 2 months and they ended up not responding or saying they were too b
usy to look at it. So I don't know where we should put that sort of feedback. Maybe in the FAQ. I dont' know if it's that useful to put that information in there. I'd be interested in hearing from others in the group if they want it in the FAQ.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note timeline. and to note ID2020 briefly and regular callers on call.
dezell: I want to remind people on the call that this topic has taken a lot of the bandwidth of the IG over the past few months, it's to many people a useful topic for Web Payments. A lot of people believe that there are parts of what is being proposed in Web Payments and parts that are useful in other areas. It's going to be really important that this group give careful consideration to what we want to do moving forward because to just be hypothetical ...
we could do the group a disservice if it should be done in another group. I personally don't believe that, just playing devil's advocate. I'm saying we should give this careful consideration, dont' want only one or two people deciding it.
manu: To mention some other stats on the group. Most recently, the active participants, the people showing up for the calls, is up to 20-23 people per call. There is some overlap with this group, but a lot of these people are new to standards and W3C. Most recently, there was the UN ID2020 summit and we picked up a very large group of people from that community that had an overlapping set of requirements and the community continues to build. In order to en
sure the WPIG has ample time to review the documents ... we will have the documents ready for review for the 3rd week in June. That should give you a week to look over the docs before the F2F. We hope to be releasing each doc between now and 3rd week of June so you can pick certain docs and read through them between now and F2F.
manu: That's just a quick update on when we'll be releasing these docs, so now and between week 3 of June. Hopefully that's plenty of time to get feedbakc.
Ian: I think that it's important in prepping these materials to point to the increasing support from W3C membership. Increasing support from non-members is good information, but more important is driving interest in the membership. Good for the report to speak to that. It's also important to show -- software implementers, not just adopters of vocabularies -- which software implementers are important. Any data on responses from those who had expressed skept
icism during outreach earlier in the year ... Manu's summary to me is that they haven't really responded to subsequent pings. I think that's not encouraging but I appreciate the effort and it's hard to get people to allocate time to this and I recognize that but I would concerned if the people who expressed concerned did not then show signs of support.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note W3C member support.
Ian: Thank you for working on shrinking the materials, that's great.
manu: All good things, we'll try
and document those to the FAQ at the very least. We do have
numbers on W3C members that support vs. non-members. We didn't
focus on any particular org, we asked both non-members and
members the same questions -- only that if they were
non-members if they would join W3C if the work started.
... So we will have that data int here.
... As far as people responding, people that were on the fence
... I want to point out that it's very much the minority. We're
not talking about people who were completely opposed to work,
we're talking about, in the majority of cases, for say, 2 out
of 50-60 responses. The majority of people that were concerned
about the work that they were very concerned and we should
watch out for the pitfalls. When we said here's how we'll try
and avoid the pitfalls
-- they just didn't respond, said too busy, etc. Didn't say it wasn't good/bad way forward.
manu: Yes, it's a concern that they haven't responded, but if we focus too much on that we completely miss the 43 other orgs that say people start the work. They say it's a good thing to do and the scope is narrow enough,e tc.
Ian: One thing that would be good to point out then is that the CCG supports this work, my guess is that going to be that many of the 43 have been in the CCG. ...
manu: They actually have not.
Ian: Great. It would be great to point out who the new proponents are that weren't in the CCG or weren't in the VCTF when it started. Over the past 3 months, the following new people have expressed support.
manu: Ok.
... I will try to add an item in the FAQ that says "Has support
for the work been growing?" ...
Ian: I'm interested in what the task force has done, since it launched, what are the new expressions of interest?
manu: Ok, will do.
<manu> Not Manu's implementations/work! The CG's / VCTF's design/implementation. This is a community effort! :)
<manu> yaaay, Erik! :)
Erik: Manu has found a lot of interest from quite surprisingly the ledger groups. Linked Data between different ledgers ... originally I was really worried with Manu's implementations on there but people are now seeing linked mechanisms between different ledgers and my main use case against this ... we've now found that there's a lot of support for this for Manu's work. We're finding a lot of use for it internally and external. Simple to put my claim on a
ledger or link this way and that. It's implementation agnostic. I'm fully supportive of this work and if it doesn't take off at W3C I will make sure it takes off somewhere else.
Erik: The only reason I was
against it was non-repudiation and that's not an issue
now.
... Only reason I'm not on those calls is a conflict at the
time.
Manu: Ok, great, thanks, Erik.
dezell: We're not trying to get
you to reinvent the alphabet to try and get back to people. The
right thing is to have an appendix to have exactly what you
just said. We don't have to necessarily give attribution to the
people having concerns and just talk about proposed mitigation
and leave it at that.
... I want to say that this is excellent work and thank
you.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to point out that the history of the last two years is actually important to show the timeline
ShaneM: I wanted to react to something Ian said -- I agree that the task force is important but the preceding two years is also important, I want to say this work started forever ago.
+1 AC reps wanted to know there has been incubation
Ian: Yes, but need to get
management support.
... I appreciate the opportunity to clarify why the delta
information is important to clarify wrt the task force.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask "what we need to get management buy in?"
manu: I think the question in general to the group is: "What do we need for management buy in?" For 6+ months we have been answering questions ... "What do we need for AC reps, what do we need for companies that will join the work for buy in..." now "management buy in". I want to make sure that there's an end to this, effectively, that we know very clearly what questions management wants answered. I feel that all the ones that have been laid down we've ans
wered and we have a lot of data. Some of the questions asked in the past have been very vague. Continuing to ask vague questions just stalls the work. We want to have a concrete way of resolving any questions.
manu: It's not very fair to the VCTF to put the entirety of that burden on them -- we want a definitive list of questions to answer and they need to be answerable.
Ian: I have been working for 8+
months to get a better sense of what those questions might be,
please present information about implementers and members that
will support the work. I believe I'm channeling the questions
management tends to ask. I can't give you a list of
authoritative questinos that, if answered, will produce
success. I can't do that so please don't ask. I just want to
make sure they have the information they need to decide.
... Next up we will produce the information we believe will be
satisfactory to management but we don't know.
... Wendy will be at F2F to give feedback and then we will know
if that information is satisfactory or not.
... My recommendation is to do the most work possible to get
the materials in order that you're already producing. There may
not be time for Wendy to review ahead of time. If the materials
are available a week before the meeting then the conversation
can happen at the F2F which may be the best time. The meeting
will be the chance to have the full conversation, 90 minutes
allocated to the session, with Wendy in the room with materials
available a week in a
dvance. Seems like the best way to go in my view.
Ian: That's not the actual
official request to the management team, it's just about seeing
if Wendy has bought in.
... I don't know how to preempt that given timing, etc.
dezell: I don't have anything to add to that, I think it's important that we do our best to address this to management. They also have resource pressures they have to look at. It's incumbent upon us to help them see a positive outcome. I think you've pretty much done that, Manu. The rest is persuasion.
<Ian> --> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Jul2016
dezell: The list on the page is kind of up to date, some late breaking things that aren't on there.
<Ian> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73816/wpig-201607/results
Ian: A couple of things -- right now we have eight people attending in person. Registration is open until the 27th. We need to do planning and so forth but we have quite a small number of attendees. Who on the call is planning to register and hasn't done so yet?
Kris: I don't know yet, honestly.
Ian: The best reason to meet is F2F is to address concerns to people and it justifies travel and time. Right now it looks like we are going to have ... try to get to this question for VC ... does the IG support proposing to the membership, blockchain discussion... what's the time anticipated for an ILP discussion?
dezell: An hour I believe.
Ian: If you assume 9:30-12:30 and
2:30-5:30. Six to seven hours we have accounted for 1 hour for
ILP, 1 hour for blockchain, and 1.5 hours for VC. David and Pat
wanted to org a discussion on mission of the IG so let's assume
1 hour for that.
... Juerg expressed an interest in presentation ...
... Let's leave some time for brainstorming.
<manu> +1 for brainstorming
Ian: (People suggested)
... All of those things, with the exception of blockchain are
familiar to us... are there other things that are on people's
minds at this point in time that we need to be covering?
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about "advertising items for sale"
Manu: There's an item on there for coupons and loyalty during checkout. There has been work in the WPCG over the past four years that talk about how the merchant says they have something for sale. It's not necessarily a digital offer that says you can get a discount. I'm asserting it's something else. It's a way to get into the search engine knowledge graph -- so when you look for something to buy you can get that in there and know it's for sale 2 miles aw
ay from you, etc. We had a fair bit of work on this in the CG and I don't know where that fits in but I think it fits into the "what else category", Ian.
dezell: I also had a lengthy conversation with Claudia from US Fed -- she said the same thing you pointed out and said there are lot of things in the WPCG that we haven't addressed yet.
<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk about 'coupons' and new topics
dezell: I think that, for instance, the discussion on coupons and loyalty, if we allowed it could take a while. There is work on the way in other groups and we should say how we mesh with that ... I think that the two big ticket items are about Verifiable Claims and all of this other "gap" in the payments going forward. Which has to do with merchandising. There's a little bit of a pivot.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note how this dovetails with the Web Payments WG work. and to note digital signatures on offers.
manu: To talk about how this stuff, especially the digital offer stuff -- in how this relates to the WPWG stuff. There's been discussion about what part of the payment request do you send to the Payment App, all of it or some of it. One of the issues with that is that digital offers may be digitally signed. The merchant may not care where that offer gets circulated, they just want it to be their offer, unchanged.
<Ian> (Yes: you sign bits and pieces!)
<Ian> -1 to the IG discussing detailed issues that are for the WG
manu: That means digital signatures -- and you can pick the data apart. There's a danger here we're painting ourselves into a corner. If you start breaking up the payment request -- then you have to sign bits and pieces of it and so on ... and we may end up painting ourselves into a corner in Web Payments API 1.0 because we're not thinking about this stuff. It's very important. Another topic might be that you want to talk about digital signatures. We want
to make sure that these offers from retailers can't be tampered with in transit.
also note -- the ability to call payment request APIs in different contexts relates to this.
<AdrianHB> +1 - especially coupons, loyalty etc
<AdrianHB> ^^ to dezell
dezell: AdrianHB? is on the same page here.
<Ian> ===
<Ian> 08:45-10:00: IG Mission
<Ian> 10:00-10:30: Break
<Ian> 10:30-12:00 Verifiable claims
<Ian> 12:00-12:45 Blockchain
<Ian> 12:45-14:00 Lunch
<Ian> 14:00-15:30 Coupons
<Ian> 15:30-16:30: ILP update
Ian: I don't think that the IG is the right forum for the shape of the API, that's a discussion for the WG.
<Ian> 16:30-17:00: Brainstorm, next steps
<Ian> ===
<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Jul2016#Agenda
Ian: If we want more brainstorming time, then the first thing I would cut is VC to an hour and then coupons to an hour.
<Ian> 1 hour
<Ian> Edited:
<Ian> ===
<Ian> 08:45-10:00: IG Mission
<Ian> 10:00-10:30: Break
<Ian> 10:30-12:00 Verifiable claims
<Ian> 12:00-12:45 Blockchain
<Ian> 12:45-14:00 Lunch
<Ian> 14:00-15:30 Coupons
<Ian> 15:30-16:00 Break
<Ian> 16:00-17:00: ILP update
<Ian> 17:00-18:00: Brainstorm, next steps
<Ian> ===
dezell: Once we see what the
presentations look like we can always shorten some things and
lengthen others. One thing that is missing, IMO, is topics that
are important in Europe but that our North American members
drop completely.
... We may learn some things as we talk with ISO folks soon.
The one thing I'm not comfortable with is the lack of European
things.
Ian: I dont' want Americans
telling Europeans what they're interested in so we want them to
bring those topics here.
... If something is raised we'll do our best to structure the
agenda to include them.
Kris: Which ISO folks will you be talking with and about what?
Ian: There are a bunch of things
coming together ... last week I met with Lauren Jones, who
introduced herself as the liaison from the management group at
[...] because of the upcoming meeting in London where she is
based we wanted to see if she could come.
... We chatted for an hour and mentioned you extensively :)
<dezell> It's TC68/SC7/TG1
Ian: That's one thread, I believe
David Ezell had said it would be really good to sync up with
ISO TC68 (or whichever WG it is). We have a liaison call with
Patrice and Clement on Wednesday to check in on what's going
on.
... I hope some of your colleagues will be there in July.
Kris: Yes, I will probably be there as well.
dezell: Next meeting ... we have
said by the 13th which is our next meeting we want the outlines
for these questions filled in --- we want to be able to
understand this by the 20th. I wonder if we need to meet next
week to double check in terms of outline, then on the 20th to
see what we have in terms of presentations and then eschew the
meeting on the 27th.
... Ian suggests next meeting 20th.
<ShaneM> +1 for 20 june
dezell: Anyone opposed?
<Ian> Next meeting - 20 June