<scribe> Scribe: Ian
IJ: Any conflicts in moving auth to 2 April (due to a conflict for some people on 1 April)?
<scribe> ACTION: Ian to look into moving authentication to 2 April (possibly)
NickTR: Hope is to have both
audio and video for the meeting
... We are not planning to record video and audio
<nicktr> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/FTF-Mar2020#remote-first-agendas
[On the agenda]
* Payment request / payment handler
* SRC
* Authentication
* Open banking
* Merchant feedback
Nick: Anything missing? Balance seem ok?
<nicktr> IJ: Many thanks to the Chrome team for their privacy threat analysis on payment handlers
<nicktr> ...we are writing up some proposed changes
<nicktr> ...we intend to send out material before the meeting
<nicktr> IJ: The Open Banking session is the least structured
<nicktr> ...STET and the Berlin Group and the UK Open Banking implenentation folk are meeting this week to agree an agenda
IJ: You'll have reading materials a few days in advance
NickTR: How do you think we can get people to engage with that material and encourage reading in advance?
Rouslan: Other than email to the group?
Lauren: I think organizing it
within the framework of the meeting would help
... e.g., read these materials for Day 1, etc.
NickTR: We'll structure it that way in the agenda as well as in the email
Rouslan: In addition, perhaps
thinks about the people and organizations from whom we'd like
answers to questions
... and ask those specific people to come to the meeting with
those answers.
NickTR: Yes, we can prompt for the response.
Lauren: Would be good to have prioritized meeting objectives
NickTR: Good point; especially in a remote meeting where engagement may be reduced.
<nicktr> IJ: can we talk about objectives?
<nicktr> IJ: Day 1 is likely to be the easiest, as we have some proposals so the objective will be to reach consensus (or otherwise)
<nicktr> IJ: Rouslan, any other objective?
<nicktr> Rouslan: No
<nicktr> IJ: Day 2: Primary objective would be the card networks converge on a vision for SRC over Payment Request
<nicktr> IJ: Hopefully it will be the "ta-da" moment on an architecture
nickTR: I have a more basic
ambition for day 2
... for most people joining that call, there will not be a
common level of understanding about SRC itself
Lauren: Does this tie into the
objectives. Or "who do we need input from"?
... So maybe the pre-reading includes high-level description of
the session
... to set expectations and get the right people into the
conversation
NickTR: yes, so we should set the appropriate expectation.
<nicktr> nicktr: Day 3 feels more informational
<nicktr> IJ: Yes, hearing from latest info from WebAuthn
<nicktr> ...for example use of cross-origin calls
<nicktr> ...so educational but also prompting discussion
<nicktr> IJ: But I also have a slide deck which I had hoped would bring crisp set of requirements.
<nicktr> ...I do not think we are there yet, but we do need that synthesis
NickTR: On day 4, hearing from a
merchant should be valuable
... and then the session on open banking is focused on
rekindling engagement
<AdrianHB> +1
NickTR: We are thinking of lightning talks to increase engagement
Lauren: Is the idea to plan or improvise?
(IJ: +1 to planning )
NickTR: Probably want to give people warning so that more people may be at ease in presenting
<AdrianHB> +1 to general invite to start
NickTR: I propose to do targeted outreach first
Lauren: Build with the end in
mind- what insights do we hope to receive
... So you could target lightning talks to get answers you want
for each session
Ian: Demos are a form of lighting talk
<nicktr> IJ: demos are always super helpful
IJ: Can I send an email to people re: demos?
<nicktr> IJ: But a focused email feels like a good idea
<scribe> ACTION: Ian to send email to the WPWG regarding demo topics (to help with scheduling)
30 March start of calls!
nickTR: Talk to you soon, stay well!