Web Payments IG Telcon
18 Jul 2016

trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Web Payments Interest Group Teleconference

<scribe> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Jul/0052.html

<scribe> chair: dezell, Erik

<scribe> scribe: Ian

About this call

dezell: We had a good FTF meeting, during which we identified some areas where we need to make progress. We have champions for three areas
... we may not need full IG meetings once task forces get started

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to volunteer Participant Digital Bazaar for Digital Offers :)

dezell: we will meet as a full IG as necessary (including on demand)

Manu: Please add digital bazaar to list of participants for digital offers

[Ed Collupy Intor]

Ed: I led IT at "The Pantry"

dezell: So areas of interest to the IG I heard from the IG FTF are digital offers, agile process, and IG document refresh

[David reviews these briefly]

scribe: we are looking for participants in task forces

evert: I think Peter has been hired in the NL; I will reach out to him

Digital Offers

dezell: We need to understand the goals of this task force

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we should include Google's Product / Knowledge Graph team by reaching out to Dan Brickley (I can take an action on that)

<jheuer> I will check back with our business unit for eCommerce and make a statement whether DT is willing to join an activity on web-based offers

Manu: if we want to reach out to google team about offers, I can do that
... may also want to bring Martin Hepp in
... around offers ("Good Relations")
... Martin Hepp at U. of Munich
... also reach out to Best Buy (who has spent time with Good Relations)

[On what "digital offers" means]

scribe: could be discounts or points or redeemable offers

<jheuer> Martin Hepp, Bundeswehr University (German Army - actually, this is where my younger son has started his studies last year! :-)

dezell: For this task force and others, we want to have deliverables available by TPAC

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if they can put a spec forward for digital offers?

manu: Can the WPCG put forward a spec for discussion? We've had one for multiple years.

<Erik> Manu can you link it?

<manu> Erik, keep in mind - very much a work in progress *finds link*

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

IJ: Will TF leads follow this process?

<manu> Ian: We have a process - champions, tasks, roles - will chairs expect that champions follow this process?

<Erik> Yes

dezell: Yes
... I spoke with Linda about this.

IJ: Please no spec work in this IG (or its task forces)

<manu> Ian: I suggest that Web Payments CG talk w/ task force for offers on the right time to raise that in the group.

Agile process

<dezell> akc ian

<manu> Ian: TPAC starts on September 19th - presumably, we'd want information to be available in advance of the meeting?

<ShaneM> Isn't there a two week requirement for materials for F2F meetings?

<manu> Ian: No, I don't believe that requirement exists for materials. There may be an Agenda published requirement.

<manu> Ian: I have low expectations given the amount of time available if work on this particular thing starts mid-August - so, it would be good to get a clear picture on what should be done.

<manu> Ian: Also, number of concerns investing in tooling that's not open source/free tooling.

<manu> I note that Github isn't "open source" ... is it free?

<manu> Ian: Do you think this Task Force has a broader scope - process related things, or just tooling-related things?

<manu> Ian: It's not clear what our workflow is

<manu> Ian: You want the right tool to support the workflow - what is the workflow we're trying to support via tooling. I don't want to show up and say "here's tooling everyone" - lots of tools available to us - free and non-free - first question is what is the actual workflow of the group?

<manu> Erik: Intake is the first step

<manu> Ian: The Task Force should focus on the workflow question first, not the concrete tooling question -

<manu> Erik: Cart before the horse - you have to enforce workflow via tools.

<dezell> Process short: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Jul/att-0000/IG-mission.pdf slide 46

<manu> Ian: I want to emphasize that the work we started earlier this year on the IG process was about workflow - we have more work to do (probably) to dive into the details about what that means.

<ShaneM> tools that dont allow user definition of workflow aren't interesting.

<manu> Ian: We haven't explored it, we don't have social buy in yet. If you show up with the tool, without understanding the process, I don't think I'd be able to be very effective with it.

IJ: Please focus first on workflow before determining what tools to recommend.

dezell: I think this is an important topic but agree with Ian's point that needs further development

IG Document Refresh

dezell: Pat and I chatted next week

<manu> Ian: Comment on IG Document Refresh - I think the framing IG Document Refresh is perhaps not the right framing.

<manu> Ian: If I understand the topic, what we want to do is fulfill our mission, some of which may involve clear documentation of use cases, translation of use cases via gap analysis for needed capabilities of the web, document refresh may sound like an editorial thing. We want to get at the heart of our mission - identify standardization opportunities - we have documentation that we can produce to do that. A framing that is less about updating documents and more about

<manu> process for establishing priorities, core use cases, web capabilities is the topic that would interest people more and is a better reflection of what the IG would do.

<manu> dezell: Do you have a name that would work better?

<manu> Ian: At a high level, it's use cases and gap analysis, but I don't know if that's what Pat had in mind.

<manu> Ian: I don't think it's about refreshing documents in any case.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note what Pat might have had in mind (based on hallway discussion)

Manu: Based on hallway discussion with Pat, I think there is a general frustration that we are not really working from a high-level architecture.
... one philosophy is to identify use cases and build modular components and we MAY end up with an architecture.
... another philosophy is to identify some guiding principles based on holistic review and drive work based on those principles or vision
... when it comes to identifying use cases and doing gap analysis, I think we are already doing that.
... I would like to do both top-down and bottom up to see if we are meeting in the middle

dezell: I think there are a number of things that are possible; need to clarify mission
... another critique is finding out what we are doing through our documentation

Erik: Serge also said he had trouble finding information; we were drowning in content

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that maybe we want to direct efforts at Web Payments Overview document that WG is working on?

Manu: Instead of starting a new effort around "what's the entry point".......
... Maybe we can focus on the WG's overview doc
... I wonder whether working on another holistic doc will have desired end result.
... maybe we want to work with the WG on some of these core docs

<kriske> +1 on Manu's comment

<manu> Ian: A year ago, we were in a pretty good position - document that was circulating on the various resources that the IG was developing and the relationship among them.

<manu> Ian: That light touch that tells a story is sufficient and can be done on the IGs internal homepage or some place else - one reason that it's fallen into disuse is that we've offshored most of our work for the past 8 months or so - the IG has been less active, efforts going to Web Payments WG, Verifiable Claims, Interledger. I think it's partly updating statement of work, IG hasn't been as active as it has during first year.

<manu> Ian: I don't recommend working with Web Payments Overview - that has a particular emphasis - what have we already done and how does Working Group work fit together. That's different from topics that Interest Group might be working on. IG should not try to influence WG, people that want to do that should go to WG and influence from inside.

<manu> Ian: Updating our materials appropriately feels fairly lightweight to me.

<manu> dezell: Informally, I've heard a FAQ might help. I know we started on a while back.

<manu> Ian: Concrete questions to the list? We need to understand what the questions are.

<manu> dezell: I just heard that a FAQ would be helpful.

<manu> Ian: You could go back and ask for concrete questions.

<manu> dezell: I might send Peter a question, ask him what kind of questions he'd like to ask us.

Verifiable Claims Next Steps

Manu: The IG resolved to send the materials to W3M for review
... I chatted with Wendy about changes and she has ideas (for post IETF)
... regarding time at TPAC; it may be too soon to request space for a WG.
... could do as a CG but people have hard time justifying travel for 2 hours
... another idea is to have some time at IG meeting on VC
... do we have a timeline for w3m to get back to us?

<manu> Ian: Wendy will get back with changes next week - discussion may go back and forth - management team will put on its calendar material review - Wendy is leading this - get materials to wendy to take to management meeting for discussion, then there would be additional planning of review - comms around review, and so realisitcally, an AC review (making this up completely - knowing travel/review), AC review realistically - hard to start in August, goes into September

<manu> , feels like review should be extended up through TPAC so people have an opportunity to discuss face-to-face - timing needs to be discussed with Wendy.

<manu> Ian: When you say "management feedback by next week" - it's really Wendy. I think you're asking for some IG guidance - but you and Wendy should strategize.

dezell: other TPAC topics - inter ledger (which has a CG meeting then), and also overlap with AC meeting
... so we do need to do some planning about when and how much VC would fit into IG

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask for time at TPAC - see what I'm telling folks.

Manu: My question is "what am I telling VCTF people"??
... Do we think that having FTF time at TPAC is not going to happen or is too early?

<manu> Ian: I think "we don't know yet" is the answer.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note when we could know? Timeline?

IJ: I believe we don't have all the critical parties at the table.

<manu> Ian: When you ask this question, it depends on Wendy, so the answer will come from her.

IJ: and that includes Wendy so I think she needs to be in the loop

<dezell> Notice of decision: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Jul/0031.html

dezell: AOB?

Next meeting

1 August