13:49:25 RRSAgent has joined #wpwg 13:49:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-wpwg-irc 13:49:27 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:49:27 Zakim has joined #wpwg 13:49:29 Zakim, this will be 13:49:29 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 13:49:30 Meeting: Web Payments Working Group Teleconference 13:49:30 Date: 25 August 2016 13:49:53 agenda: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160825 13:50:35 agenda+ Draft TPAC agenda 13:50:58 agenda+ Issue and pull request triage 13:51:00 agenda+ testing plan 13:51:06 agenda+ APA request 13:58:02 Present+ Manu 14:00:09 alyver has joined #wpwg 14:00:14 present+ Ian 14:00:22 DJackson has joined #wpwg 14:00:24 present+ alyver 14:00:32 present+ DJackson 14:01:11 present+ dlongley 14:02:18 present+ ShaneM 14:02:20 regrets+ NickTR 14:02:43 regrets+ Zach 14:03:05 present+ AdrianHB 14:03:26 Roy has joined #wpwg 14:03:27 dezell has joined #wpwg 14:04:21 present+ Roy 14:04:26 present+ Max 14:04:33 present+ DavidEzell 14:04:51 agenda => https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20160825 14:04:59 Present+ dezell 14:05:14 zakim, take up item 1 14:05:14 agendum 1. "Draft TPAC agenda" taken up [from Ian] 14:05:16 TPAC draft agenda https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/FTF-Sep2016 14:05:33 Max has joined #wpwg 14:05:38 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2016/?login 14:06:32 rouslan has joined #wpwg 14:06:47 present+ 14:07:11 present+ adamR 14:08:03 q+ to ask if we anticipate any discussion of the patent stuff? 14:08:08 ian: [talking through agenda] 14:08:27 ... will speak to editors in advance about reporting on their work and how it will evolve 14:08:41 ... still a wip 14:08:49 q? 14:08:52 ack Sh 14:08:52 ShaneM, you wanted to ask if we anticipate any discussion of the patent stuff? 14:09:25 q? 14:09:33 zakim, close item 1 14:09:33 agendum 1, Draft TPAC agenda, closed 14:09:34 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:09:34 2. Issue and pull request triage [from Ian] 14:09:35 zakim, take up item 2 14:09:35 agendum 2. "Issue and pull request triage" taken up [from Ian] 14:09:44 zakim, who's here? 14:09:44 Present: Manu, Ian, alyver, DJackson, dlongley, ShaneM, AdrianHB, Roy, Max, DavidEzell, dezell, rouslan, adamR 14:09:46 On IRC I see rouslan, Max, dezell, Roy, DJackson, alyver, Zakim, RRSAgent, MaheshK, adamlake, shepazu, schuki, dlongley, adamR, manu, collier-matthew, AdrianHB, ShaneM, nicktr, 14:09:46 ... Dongwoo, adrianba, mkwst, slightlyoff, dlehn, emschwartz, davidillsley_, Ian, wseltzer, trackbot 14:10:10 AdrianHB: I think it will take me about a day to do the triage. I think the group has evolved to the point where I think we should review our process. 14:10:39 ...there are specs where there has not been activity and they don't come up on calls. I would like to delegate some of the triage responsibility to the editors 14:11:26 ...this is a question to the editors - how do you feel about taking ownership of issues lists and pull requests, and to the group: do you think this is a good idea? 14:11:40 ...do we want editors to be able to define labels and milestones, or to keep consistency? 14:11:54 q+ fine to take responsibility for issue lists, but not going to be processing them. 14:12:01 q+ manu 14:12:03 q- fine 14:12:06 q- 14:12:13 q+ to take responsibility for issue lists, but not going to be processing them. 14:12:14 Shane: I think it's reasonable to ask editors to take on maintenance of issues. 14:12:33 Shane: Are you open to editors delegating? 14:12:35 AdrianHB: Yes 14:13:01 AdrianHB: When we come to meetings, as Chair I am ok to round up what to discuss, but now we have multiple issues lists and that's more complicated. 14:13:22 multiple specs per repo is an anti-pattern... 14:13:23 ....AdrianBateman had proposed at one point a single issues list; I wonder if we should go back to "one repo" 14:13:26 +1 not a million repos 14:13:36 manu: +1 to have editors manage their own issues 14:13:38 ack m 14:13:38 manu, you wanted to take responsibility for issue lists, but not going to be processing them. 14:14:06 manu: I was a proponent of centralized issues list; but I don't think that will help us now. I think decentralizing management is appropriate and delegation to the editors is fine 14:14:26 ...editors can ask for time on a call to address their needs, and chairs make a decision given priorities 14:14:52 rouslan has joined #wpwg 14:15:16 ...I expect nothing to happen with the http api specs until the group decides they want issues to pop up 14:15:19 q? 14:15:49 payment app, payment method identifiers, browser payment request, overview? 14:15:51 q+ to note that we can't keep focus if there are issues being processed. 14:16:02 AdrianHB: My assumption was that anything that's an editors draft is a work in progress that the Editors can work on. Work can continue even if Chairs don't put time on agenda 14:16:14 ...and doesn't need to consume group time. 14:16:22 q+ to clarify what we are doing on HTTP API and messages 14:16:22 ...I definitely don't think we should have a bunch of stagnant repos out there 14:16:28 q? 14:17:03 manu: That's not my understanding of our agreement. We are not processing issues because that would take away participant time. 14:17:05 q- 14:17:38 Manu: My understanding was that we would not do work on HTTP API or pull people away. 14:17:49 we're happy to start processing and discussing those and we have asked to do parallel work 14:17:49 AdrianHB: There's a difference between "getting on with the work" and "pulling people away". 14:18:12 q+ to clarify what we are doing on HTTP API and messages 14:18:19 q- manu 14:18:27 ...people who want to get involved can. The concern was taking away time from group meetings. 14:18:36 ...each group member can choose how to spend their time. 14:18:45 ...but the chair focus is to get the prioritized work to advance 14:18:51 q? 14:18:53 q+ 14:18:57 ack ShaneM 14:18:57 ShaneM, you wanted to clarify what we are doing on HTTP API and messages 14:19:38 shanem: Do HTTP API repos trigger emails to group? 14:19:47 AdrianHB: Yes. But I trust people to manage their email input 14:20:14 q? 14:20:14 ack me 14:20:49 Ian: This is a delicate balance, the Chairs have not put some time for HTTP API on calls. I would not support using the main group mailing list for active discussion on HTTP API. 14:21:07 +1 to Ian’s point 14:21:12 Ian: I don't care if Github sends messages to us, but if now I'm getting a solicitation on the groups' mailing list on the HTTP API, it will take attention away from the group. 14:21:17 ian: it's been clear that the chairs have not put much meeting time aside for HTTP API but we're keen to set aside at f2f 14:21:38 Ian: I've appreciate the opportunity to focus, editors can do work, but let's try to find a balance where it doesn't overwhelm the groups communication channels. 14:21:47 I reserve the right to send emails to the working group... even on topics that are not at the top of the priority list. 14:22:21 Shane, I didn't ask you not to use the list for the group at all. Only to find a balance wrt priorities. 14:22:38 q+ 14:22:47 ack Ian 14:23:11 Ian: We can turn off automatic notification to the group. I don't mind leaving it on now, but if there is going to be a huge flurry of work, people that want to pay attention, they can pay attention to the repo. 14:23:53 AdrianHB: I would encourage people to work on the specs. If we decide there is too much traffic on the list we can turn off monitoring for example. 14:24:14 topic: Status of pull requests on payment request API etc. 14:24:19 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pulls 14:24:26 AdrianHB: Editors, can you provide us with some updates? 14:25:14 Roy: The only one I'm aware of is around PMIs...Zach's proposal has not yet been adopted. 14:25:47 IJ: When is your editor sync generally? 14:25:49 Roy: Tuesdays 14:26:30 IJ: Could you check in with the editors on status (e.g., as a one-off with note to the WG, or certainly in time for next call)? 14:26:40 q+ to ask roy about push 14:27:01 ack me 14:27:01 Ian, you wanted to ask roy about push 14:27:31 IJ: Roy, was a dedicated group created to work on this? 14:27:34 Roy: Not yet. 14:27:39 Roy: I hoped to raise during one of the calls. 14:27:51 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/223 14:27:52 q+ to say we're interested in push payments. 14:28:27 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/223 14:28:38 https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/224 14:28:47 IJ: Have the editors discussed this? 14:28:52 q+ 14:28:58 Roy: We've had a bit but mostly lately focused on PMIs 14:29:18 q? 14:29:19 ...I am not hearing much support for the straw man proposal. 14:29:20 ack manu 14:29:20 manu, you wanted to say we're interested in push payments. 14:30:14 Manu: Our organization is interested in push payments. We did review the PR and have some thoughts on how push payments should be done, different from what is proposed. Are you interested in the deeper discussion, or addressing the specific question of communication failures during payment request API? 14:30:27 [IJ: +1 to addressing the immediate concern for payment request API] 14:30:43 Manu: We are also looking at push payments in HTTP API context. 14:30:47 Roy: Welcome to the focus group! 14:31:00 Roy: The direction I have in mind is failure modes. 14:31:41 AdrianHB: To recap - the idea is to avoid fragmentation in how we deal with push payments. 14:32:32 ...I think push payments are quite important...most non-card payments are push 14:32:32 NACS/Conexxus are extremely interested in push payments. 14:32:55 ack Max 14:32:57 ack max 14:33:06 Max: We are also interested in exploring what we can do about push payments 14:33:41 +1 that paypal / alipay are examples of "push" 14:34:21 AdrianHB: I think we should start by looking at the issues logged against the straw man and revise it; I think it's important to sort out on these calls. 14:34:59 ACTION: Roy to prepare a "state of affairs", due 2016-09-01 14:34:59 Created ACTION-28 - Prepare a "state of affairs", due 2016-09-01 [on Roy McElmurry - due 2016-09-01]. 14:35:21 q+ to ask if people are open to extending this call to 90 minutes if that's needed in the future? 14:35:41 +1 14:36:05 AdrianHB: I am happy to put this on our tpac agenda 14:36:21 +1 to putting it on the agenxda 14:36:23 at TPAC 14:37:14 zakim, take up item 3 14:37:14 agendum 3. "testing plan" taken up [from Ian] 14:37:48 Mike: I've filed some pull requests based on testing needs. 14:38:00 ...there are some missing normative requirements that make it hard to test (and thus use) 14:38:27 Adam_ has joined #wpwg 14:38:56 ...once we start to do more testing I'm sure we will start to find more cases 14:39:09 ...I hope that we can work out something with the editors so that we can iterate quickly 14:39:22 ...to update the spec and make it more precise 14:40:24 +1 to note that requirements on users of the API are problematic. 14:40:25 Shane: We have some requirements in the spec today on "users" of the app (e.g., "one or more payment request URI").... 14:40:46 Shane: Do we want to be rigorous in the spec about error handling? 14:40:47 We should re-cast as throwing an error 14:40:54 q+ to give some thoughts. 14:40:57 i think the spec should say an error must be thrown 14:41:01 q- ShaneM 14:41:02 q- 14:41:04 IJ: I was going to ask implementers what they are doing 14:41:07 ack manu 14:41:07 manu, you wanted to give some thoughts. 14:41:43 manu: we should not suggest to people that if you do the wrong thing it will still work 14:41:53 q? 14:43:04 q+ 14:43:36 Agreed, stuff that is not testable is throw-away text (if there are MAY, MUST, etc.) 14:43:57 s/MUST,// 14:43:59 q? 14:44:14 [Discussion of notes v. normative] 14:44:15 q+ 14:44:19 q- 14:44:36 Agreed, we should not use RFC terms if it's optional stuff that demonstrates that we thought about it and decided not to do something. 14:44:38 ack adamR 14:45:23 Shane: Can talk about requirements on optional features 14:45:36 AdamR: Not sure I agree; let's discuss offline 14:47:00 Shane: How do we exercise payment request API in the absence of a payment app. 14:47:11 ..how do we test flow of messages? 14:47:13 q+ 14:47:33 ack me 14:47:33 q? 14:47:38 ack Ian 14:47:38 Shane is asking a deeper question, adrianhb 14:48:09 q+ to say I disagree slightly :) 14:48:13 q+ to note that Shane's asking a more nuanced set of questions. It's about test suite design and how we're going to do it. 14:48:26 ack AdrianHB 14:48:26 AdrianHB, you wanted to say I disagree slightly :) 14:48:27 ack 14:48:33 IJ: Right now we don't have payment apps in payment request API so that I don't know what to test. 14:49:06 q+ to say that we *could* have a testing requirement that there is a mediator supplied payment method so that we can test 14:49:29 q? 14:49:32 ack manu 14:49:32 manu, you wanted to note that Shane's asking a more nuanced set of questions. It's about test suite design and how we're going to do it. 14:50:16 q? 14:50:49 ack shane 14:50:49 ShaneM, you wanted to say that we *could* have a testing requirement that there is a mediator supplied payment method so that we can test 14:51:59 alyver has left #wpwg 14:53:25 AdrianHB: Is the assumption that browsers must have basic card supported natively out of the box? 14:53:43 AdamR: If we made it explicitly required for testing, that is probably reasonable but I want to hear from other browser vendors 14:54:22 ACTION: ShaneM to ask the list about implementors and what they can support for an extant payment method for testing purposes. 14:54:22 Created ACTION-29 - Ask the list about implementors and what they can support for an extant payment method for testing purposes. [on Shane McCarron - due 2016-09-01]. 14:55:01 we've tested things like this before - we don't necessarily need to rely on one specific method 14:55:14 adrianba: cool 14:55:28 for example, we've tested media elements where not all implementations support the same formats 14:55:41 zakim, take up next item 14:55:41 agendum 2. "Issue and pull request triage" taken up [from Ian] 14:55:42 q? 14:55:44 zakim, close item 2 14:55:44 agendum 2, Issue and pull request triage, closed 14:55:45 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 14:55:45 4. APA request [from Ian] 14:55:48 zakim, take up item 4 14:55:48 agendum 4. "APA request" taken up [from Ian] 14:56:23 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Aug/0086.html 14:56:50 q+ to talk to the APA guidance briefly 14:57:08 IJ: Please review that email and comment on the list 14:57:14 Shane: I authored the text (within the APA) 14:57:36 AdrianHB: +1 to the editors of the specs looking at it. 14:58:11 non-normative text 14:58:16 IJ: I am a bit cautious about "the implementation must ensure that the interface 14:58:16 for those interactions is exposed to the platform accessibility API." 14:58:37 ShaneM: That's not an rfc2119 must 14:59:10 IJ: I think it's appropriate to draw attention to guidelines; may not need a whole paragraph. 14:59:38 zakim, close item 4 14:59:38 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Ian 14:59:43 ack S 14:59:43 ShaneM, you wanted to talk to the APA guidance briefly 14:59:44 zakim, close item 4 14:59:45 agendum 4, APA request, closed 14:59:45 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 14:59:53 Topic: On the overview document 15:00:10 AdrianHB: I have shared with some people who have found it useful; some editing in order...I think it would be a valuable tool to be able to share with people. 15:00:16 q+ 15:00:47 ack Ian 15:01:11 Ian: I have also shared the Overview document, I offer that the next revision of it should follow TPAC. It should reflect our understanding of the world after TPAC. 15:01:13 Note that there is a publication moratorium starting on 15 September. 15:01:44 q+ to note that I thought it was going to be a NOTE as well? 15:02:02 q- 15:02:29 topic: NEXT MEETING 15:02:31 1 September 15:02:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-wpwg-minutes.html Ian 15:03:01 ShaneM has changed the topic to: Next Meeting 1 September 10 AM US Eastern Time 15:03:18 rouslan has left #wpwg 16:21:45 zkoch has joined #wpwg 17:00:32 collier-matthew has joined #wpwg 17:09:43 collier-matthew has joined #wpwg 17:22:45 Zakim has left #wpwg 17:51:34 collier-matthew has joined #wpwg 19:34:29 Adam_ has joined #wpwg 20:16:52 zkoch has joined #wpwg 23:35:33 Adam_ has joined #wpwg