See also: IRC log
use cases => https://www.w3.org/community/digitaloffers/discussion-topics-for-discussion-at-march-2017-ig-face-to-face-meeting/
form for prioritization => https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73816/digoff201703/
ltoth: One question - in a number of cases we had notes.
IJ: I left them in because we did not "approve" them
+1
<dezell> Manu: I think we don't want to go to the DRM question, as long as it handles "no more than one use."
<dezell> Ian: sounds fine.
<dezell> LGTM
<dezell> Ian: second thing - the "form" for prioritization.
<dezell> Ian: the IG is not the final authority on the CG work.
<dezell> Ian: the form should make it clear it's for feedback.
IJ: Intended for real-time gathering of data at the meeting
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to provide feedback on the use case prioritization form.
manu: I went to try out the form ... some feedback ... I read that each person has tokens and I didn't know what I was selecting.
<dezell> Manu: form feedback - didn't understand "tokens" and then how to apply to the dropdown.
<dezell> Ian: got it.
<dezell> Manu: I found it painful to allocate the tokens (i.e. we gave the right number). Finally, I found I had to go back and forth between the "poll" and the "page".
<dezell> Manu: I think a "tickler phrase" from the page on the poll would help people to remember what's what.
<dezell> Ian: I have anchors in the report for this purpose, but haven't added them yet. Or I could number them, but that's a brittle way to link thinks (moving anything breaks it.)
<dezell> Ian: I think easiest is to put a reminder structure at the bottom.
<dezell> Manu: links are fine, but broad categories are probably better in terms of links.
<dezell> Ian: but then I can't allocate 9 tokens for all of them.
<dezell> Manu: how about category and specific use case?
<dezell> Ian: I can do that, but I would find it distracting.
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73816/digoff201703/
<dezell> Manu: how about moving recap to the top.
<dezell> Ian: OK with that.
<dezell> Manu: also a health warning that moving off the page will invalidate the form.
<dezell> Linda: Is this just the IG opinion, or does it include the CG.
<dezell> Ian: it's to inform CG decisions, but it's a poll for the IG.
<dezell> David: who will send the message out?
<dezell> Ian: I'm not sure we should send a message.
<dezell> Linda: I think we could use the same form for the CG.
<dezell> Ian: though I think we will make some modifications of some sort.
<dezell> Ian: my idea is to have them fill out this form at the F2F after they have some context.
<dezell> (consensus - OK).
<dezell> Linda: our schedule is 45 (use cases) 45 (demo and capabilities) 30 (summary topics).
<dezell> Ian: I suggest we do the survey at the end of the discussion.
Manu: is discussion of technology
specific solutions in order?
... e.g., blockchain approach to avoiding N > 1
redemptions
<dezell> Manu: we have a "blockchain" use case to prevent multiple redemption. I don't want people to be surprised.
<dezell> Ian: I'm not sure how that affects W3C work.
<dezell> Manu: blockchain CG has work in this area.
<dezell> Linda:
https://www.w3.org/community/digitaloffers/digital-offers-community-group-charter/
<dezell> Linda: so after the voting, what's next.
<dezell> Ian: charter says "we will deliver a report" and then "develop an analysis that will help us address the use cases".
<dezell> Ian: there might be a further CG filtering of the use cases.
<dezell> Ian: Nirvana is "lots of industry folks are ready to attempt to implement". But we can change that based on results.
Here's the list of use cases we came up with in June 2015 that led to the WPWG => https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015/Summary
Linda: Will figure out at FTF