Digital Offers / Coupons Task Force

<ed_> +present

IJ: I have seen no objections to the draft letter; people will salt to taste

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1td9Lo6QOvPkK2W41_mEvSkmC7qlYKDvRfgG8v6XqOtA/

<manu> +1 to contacting more than one person, as long as we let folks know.

IJ: Should we send link to draft charter?

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/Loyalty2016#Draft_Charter

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask what the desired outcome from W3C TPAC

<dezell> +1 to manu

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask how those that don't have contacts can help.

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to revisit steps -

Linda: Deliverables for TPAC?

dezell: Charter

IJ: Add

- list of people we have spoken to

- their priorities and suggestions

<dezell> Goals/Scope/Deliverables

<alyver> I do not have contacts at the remaining companies, but happy to do some reach outs if others want to share their contacts.

Bob: I will go speak with our product/sales people for contact names for a number of these organizations

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to return to the letter (after TPAC goals clarified)

IJ: we have not yet framed questions we have for them
... to engage people more:

- make it more like a great opportunity

- give a sense of what we would like from them

dezell: I spoke with someone from NACS magazine this week. He is writing a piece on digital offers
... I think there are two big costs to people who distribute coupons:

1) Deployment (tracking, burning, etc.)

2) Cost of redemption (to merchants)

scribe: so I think the opportunity is to reach more people (e.g., social media) and also lower the cost of redemption

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say we're asking them about their biggest problems in the digital offers space, right?

manu: if we want to engage them, we could say "here are the things we think are the most pressing issues today"
... we would like to hear from you - did we miss something?
... we are looking for feedback soon -- upcoming meeting, want to integrate (sooner than later) into the emerging payments APIs

ltoth: Realistically, looking at the time frame, we are looking at an opportunity to have 2 phone calls
... I am wondering if rather than scheduling a meeting, should we do a survey instead?

<manu> +1 to survey, we had very good results w/ Verifible Claims and that approach

ltoth: So maybe 5-10 mins of time rather than hour of call?

dezell: I still think a call is useful (could be after labor day). I think a survey could be good
... Ian do you want to take a pass at revising the letter?

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to +1 a survey - you could look at Verifiable Claims survey as template.

IJ: would love a "here's what we think" view around which we have consensus. And use that at a starting point for outreach. I don't think we have it.

Manu: I think we do have that perspective.
... and use the group to refine

<manu> Compelling VC use cases: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uCnDSDzPtzAK4h0rPJEr90bjDeh4rRLFBaqGNBRb_tA/edit

[IJ thinks we are not there at all]

scribe: we had success through a survey
... so I think survey better approach than call
... people can list some issues that exist today
... ask people to agree/disagree with the problem statements.
... I think we can open a survey and get data in advance of TPAC

ltoth: I am confused...I took out specifics from charter
... but now I hear people want specifics.
... I'd be happy to sit with people today to talk about questions for a survey

1) Write down the problems we want to solve

2) We ask people (see spreadsheet) if they agree or have other issues

3) we have data to discuss at TPAC

IJ: +1 to writing down problem statements, then socializing them

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that he's hearing - "Let's focus on the survey"

Manu: I heard the survey is "top priority"

(IJ: I think the _problem statements_ are the most important...the survey is a means to getting data [in a timely fashion])

Manu: In my mind, then next step is pretty clear - meet today
... or over next few days

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to suggest focus is on problem statements

IJ: I think some churn inevitable; I think we are progressing and some time required to get on the same page
... +1 to crafting problem statements and those will help foster discussion

dezell: What I would like to do ... take the remainder of this call to look at what came out of charter
... that material might be useful for problem statements.
... I suggest that those who can convene at 4pm ET should do so
... create initial set of problem statements.

{IJ suggests "thinking about survey" but not "creating a survey" as you think of problem statements}

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/Loyalty2016

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page%2FLoyalty2016&diff=3844&oldid=3827

https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-wpay-digitaloffers-minutes.html

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide feedback on charter

Manu: I like the new charter...gets right to the point
... however, I think the CG should work on technical specificaiotns
... I think we are going to want to list some things that are out of scope as well...but I have no idea what they would be.
... e.g., new identification schemes
... we should make clear we are not going to propose specs in scope for other orgs
... We should indicate some things are out of scope (to show we are limiting the work)
... the other thing under deliverables: we should plan to work on technical specifications.

https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-wpay-digitaloffers-minutes.html

"again, it feels like what the CG should be focusing on, the goal of the group, is to understand what the key industry use cases are and what the Web needs to facilitate ecommerce around digital offers. Descriptions of the problem space, wrt. how W3C could standardize stuff."

Next meeting

2 September, noon ET