Web Payments Community Group Telecon

Minutes for 2014-01-15

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2014Jan/0112.html
Topics
  1. Web Payments CG Charter Proposal
  2. Web Payments CG Charter Poll
  3. Web Payments CG Work Items Poll
Resolutions
  1. The Web Payments CG Charter Proposal is ready for a vote, the vote will open on January 16th 2014 and close on January 31st 2014.
  2. Adopt the Web Payments CG Charter Proposal poll and use it to determine consensus on the groups charter.
  3. Accept the questions in the modified Web Payments CG Work Items poll and run the poll from January 16th to January 31st.
Chair
Manu Sporny
Scribe
Joseph Potvin
Present
Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Joseph Potvin, Evan Schwartz, David I. Lehn
Audio Log
Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny: Any changes to the Agenda? Any objections to discussing the charter proposal first, moving item 1 down?
No Agenda changes, item #1 (web-payments.org changes) moved to end of call.

Topic: Web Payments CG Charter Proposal

Manu Sporny: The charter proposal came about because of PayPal/Ebay's concerns with the group, it wasn't clear where the lines were, and after we talked with Ian Jacobs at W3C, he suggested that having a charter may help clarify where the Web Payments CG stops and a potential Web Payments WG starts
Manu Sporny: This is basically an attempt to document what we're working on in the group to ensure we're on the same page, people can quickly look at the charter and know what's in scope, and hopefully we can get much bigger players into the group; their lawyers are concerned about the openendedness of IP and patent commitments.
Manu Sporny: We've got a wiki page up now with the proposed charter, it's fairly complete at this point
Manu Sporny: I know Joseph asked about putting a section on funding into the charter
Manu Sporny: That's typically not done with w3c charters
Manu Sporny: Not having it in the charter doesn't stop us from trying to raise funds, but if we put it into the charter we may have to solve funding issues before accepting it the charter (it will slow us down).
Manu Sporny: And it may be better to amend later if we want to
Manu Sporny: We can discuss in more detail later, but it's complicated, CG groups aren't technically paid for by W3C, they dont' get funding, the W3C is only allowed to spend money on specific working group activities, and even that doesn't include paying editors and implementors, etc.
Manu Sporny: Funding is problematic, we want to address that issue in this group but we can't do that just yet
Joseph Potvin: What occurred to me when writing that was that.... if we come across a person or entity that wants to support the work how can they? what's the answer?
Manu Sporny: The answer right now is "we don't know"
Manu Sporny: The text that you put in there was fine, we just need to talk about it a bit more, but we don't want that to slow down charter selection.
Manu Sporny: It may be to put something out to the mailing list, but someone might respond as if they were part of the group and they weren't necessarily and then they'd take funding for a proprietary solution, etc.
Manu Sporny: Getting funding for the work is very important and there's a balance we need to strike and we need to talk about it a bit more before we put something in the charter about it
Manu Sporny: So that being said, any comments on the charter as it stands?
Dave Longley: I think we should try to be minimalistic about it, to make sure that the charter doesn't cause problems w/ the group. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Evan Schwartz: I looked at it before the call and it seemed perfectly fine to me
Manu Sporny: I think the way it's written should make the Ripple and Bitcoin work be considered in scope
Evan Schwartz: I saw the part about it being about web payments and not specific currencies and we agree with that
Evan Schwartz: And i do think this group does touch on identity and security and stuff like that
Joseph Potvin: We may add a phrase at the bottom to say that partner entries could be added and that wouldn't require a new vote/amendment on the charter
Manu Sporny: Ok, i'll put that in
Joseph Potvin: Should we include the work items too?
Manu Sporny: No we can't do that, that is a scoping issue, lawyers will look at that to sign off on whether or not their engineers can participate in the group
Manu Sporny: For work items we have to recharter to give lawyers time to look and see if they still agree with the list
Manu Sporny: Any other comments/questions on the charter?
Dave Longley: It certainly seems like the charter defines what we've been doing for the past several years and what we've been doing. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Joseph Potvin: In the decision process i don't think we have a sentence or two describing charter approval or revision
Manu Sporny: To accept the charter is a 2/3rds vote
Manu Sporny: I did that to accept the charter because i think we should have a supermajority
Joseph Potvin: Oh, nevermind it is in there
Joseph Potvin: I wonder if the amendment to the charter is a section under decision processes
Manu Sporny: In general we don't want to bikeshed it too much, the information is there, and we could call it a day and it would be formatting change not a significant change to the charter
Manu Sporny: If anyone on the mailing list doesn't like a formatting change they can call for a vote on the change
Dave Longley: Will we send the version of the charter to the mailing list and save a link to the specific revision?
Manu Sporny: Yes, i'll send it to the mailing list and we have it in github and we'll put it on the website too
Manu Sporny: If everyone is more or less ok with it we can call for a vote and we can resolve that here and call for a vote starting tomorrow
Joseph Potvin: It's a separate vote on the work items though?
Manu Sporny: Yes
Manu Sporny: Two different votes
Manu Sporny: One for charter, one for work items
Joseph Potvin: Just don't want people to get confused
Manu Sporny: We can put both votes out at the same time and make it clear there are two polls to participate in
Joseph Potvin is scribing.
PROPOSAL: The Web Payments CG Charter Proposal is ready for a vote, the vote will open on January 16th 2014 and close on January 31st 2014.
Manu Sporny: +1
Dave Longley: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Joseph Potvin: +1
Evan Schwartz: +1
RESOLUTION: The Web Payments CG Charter Proposal is ready for a vote, the vote will open on January 16th 2014 and close on January 31st 2014.

Topic: Web Payments CG Charter Poll

Manu Sporny: Please take a look at the language for the poll, point out any issues.
Dave Longley: We Might want the charter link to use a revision number
Manu Sporny: Yeah, Agreed. I'll add it.
Manu Sporny: Introductory section - this polling approach approach permits any polling system and also anonymity
Manu Sporny: Stepping through the questions on the Charter vote -- any concerns about the questions?
Dave Longley: The vote on the charter approval itself is only approve or not with no abstain thought other questions have an abstain option? That's what the decision process in the charter says.
Dave Longley: What is different between routine decision making and calling a vote?
Manu Sporny: Adjusting text in "decision process" section to clarify three kinds of processes
Joseph Potvin: If a person is opposed but won't stand in the way that's working consensus #1, if someone is opposed and does want to prevent a decision that's #2 [scribe assist by Dave Longley]
Dave Longley: The three kinds now work as increasing validation of a decision . Second stage formally acknowledges a disagreement. An opposed individual can then seek two others who agree that stage-3 vote is needed.
Dave Longley: Three decision stages should show escalation
Manu Sporny: Ok, made those changes to the decision making process in the charter. Are there any further comments on the poll?
Dave Longley: In the poll, change "will adopting" to "adopting" -- as a statement
Manu Sporny: Done. Any further comments?
No Further comments, group agrees on poll questions.
PROPOSAL: Adopt the Web Payments CG Charter Proposal poll and use it to determine consensus on the groups charter.
Joseph Potvin: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Evan Schwartz: +1
RESOLUTION: Adopt the Web Payments CG Charter Proposal poll and use it to determine consensus on the groups charter.
Manu Sporny: We need to talk about the vote on in-scope specs

Topic: Web Payments CG Work Items Poll

Manu Sporny: If everyone on the call can scan the poll and raise any problems with the poll, that'd be great.
Joseph Potvin: The working in Q6 about pricing indices should not refer to any particular unit of account (re: Bitcoin).
Manu Sporny: Ok, change made.
David I. Lehn: What happens if people accept a higher-level spec (like Web Payments), but then reject a lower-level spec (like Secure Messaging) that the higher-level spec depends on? What happens if people that are not educated about how these specs fit together vote against some of the lower-level specs that the higher level ones depend on?
Manu Sporny: We'd have to figure that out if it happens. It could be something as simple as a message out to the mailing list noting that the group just shot itself in the foot. A re-vote could be held and if people still vote against the low-level spec, then we'd have to ask for alternatives to that low-level spec. In general, we're expecting people to make an educated decision about these specs w/o needing to understand all the details.
David I. Lehn: Sometimes it's not clear why we use a given technlology or take a given approach, except wading through email list archives.
Manu Sporny: Hard to bring all the info together in an elegant and efficient way, we're trying, and we need to do a better job on that. That's why there is a short explanation of each spec and what it does by each vote item.
David I. Lehn: Some might say some items are better addressed elsewhere, for example - but it's much easier to work on all of this stuff in one group until it matures a bit more, easier to change dependencies in all the specs. It could be that lots of people abstain.
Manu Sporny: A high number of abstentions would indicate that members feel a lack of info, so we might have to educate and vote again as a group.
Dave Longley: Are abstentions counted in the calculation of a majority?
Manu Sporny: An abstention is not count as a cast vote in favor or against, no it doesn't count.
Manu Sporny: This is now clarifired in the poll
Dave Longley: Should we state the function of abstention in the Charter decision section?
Manu Sporny: I don't think it's necessary, we can always include that information in the poll. If we find that we do it for every poll, we could put it in the charter.
Manu Sporny: Ok, let's all please read through each work item in the work items poll and comment on anything that needs to be fixed
Joseph Potvin: There was a discussion on the list about the form of documentation and UML. Documentation is a controversial issue, do we want to say that's part of this? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Dave Longley: If this is a controversial issue (how we document things), perhaps we can leave it out for now? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny: Let's find out first what implementers will be looking for in documentation. Let's not include here the "how" and "what form" right now, because that's part of the process of developing these documents.
Joseph Potvin: I have concerns about the "Web Payment Intents" item... for the purposes of the poll, can we refine the title? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny: Sure, now it's Web Payment Crowdfunding
David I. Lehn: Q9 Links to http-keys which redirs to secure-messaging. I was changing links last night to point to secure-messaging, should the poll do so too?
Manu Sporny: Yes, fixed.
Dave Longley: Change "patent and royalty-free" to "unencumbered by patents and royalties"
Manu Sporny: Ok, changed.
Joseph Potvin: Q3 text is problematic, needs to be updated to new text from the Charter. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny: Done, alignment of Q3 text to Goal section of Charter
Joseph Potvin: Q6 suggested to refine but generalize the examples of indices
Manu Sporny: Fixing... added indexing examples, and example for a baker and energy index
Manu Sporny: Any other changes to the poll?
No Changes requested by the participants.
PROPOSAL: Accept the questions in the modified Web Payments CG Work Items poll and run the poll from January 16th to January 31st.
Dave Longley: +1
Joseph Potvin: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Evan Schwartz: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
RESOLUTION: Accept the questions in the modified Web Payments CG Work Items poll and run the poll from January 16th to January 31st.
Manu Sporny: The next call will cover the changes to the website and then hopefully back into technical discussion.
Manu Sporny: Any other comments or concerns before we adjourn?
No Other comments.
Manu Sporny: Talk with all of you next week, thanks for scribing Joseph, you did great! :)

Created by the Web Payments Community Group. Shared with love under a CC-BY license. Thanks to our contributors.