Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

WebPaymentIGProcess

From Web Commerce Interest Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Status: This is a draft proposal. Questions? Contact public-webpayments-ig@w3.org.

The Web Payments Interest Group charter defines the scope of the group's work, which includes identifying potential standardization opportunities (expressed, for example, through draft charters). The Interest Group has undertaken several activities to identify standardization opportunities, such as evaluating the potential impact of regulatory changes (e.g., PSD2, faster payments) on the Web, or by looking at industry needs (e.g., around eCommerce). But the group has not established a way to identify "necessary capabilities for the Web" either systematically. This proposal seeks to improve how the Interest Group gets work done.

Goals

  • Foster participation within the IG.
  • Increase the chances of IG success by grounding our agenda in industry use cases and gaining experience on how to understand the standardization opportunities they suggest.

Scope of this Document

  • This document addresses the part of the IG's agenda that involves activities for getting to charter
  • Typically this work will involve describing user stories, refining them into use cases, understanding implied capabilities for the Web, and translating "missing capabilities" into draft charter text. See the Web Payments Use Cases.
  • This document does not (yet) discuss software tools for tracking work, issues, etc.
    • Many W3C groups now use GitHub.
  • This document does not cover other W3C processes:

Bringing Topics to the Group

  • Participants are encouraged (at any time) to bring topics of interest to the Interest Group in the form of short presentations (e.g., coupon opportunity presentation).
  • Presentations should include:
    • A user story (in scope for the IG) that illustrates a problem to solve.
    • Why improved interoperability would help or create new opportunities.
    • How do users benefit from interop? How does interop impact business incentives?
    • Parties critical to implementation of solutions.
    • Related efforts (e.g., in other standards groups).
    • How W3C is uniquely positioned to add value.

Adding Items to our Agenda

There may be a variety of outcomes, including the following (determined, for example, through an informal Chair poll):

  • There is strong IG support for the topic, then:
    • Someone volunteers as champion and develops a plan that becomes part of our agenda.
    • Nobody volunteers as champion, and the chairs drop the topic from our agenda.
    • We recommend the topic be addressed elsewhere within W3C (e.g., in the Security Activity). In this case, someone may volunteer to champion the topic, convey it to that forum, and help track its progress.
  • There is little or no support, then:
    • The chairs drop the topic from our agenda.

Note:

  • While the Interest Group could prioritize problems it wants to solve, it may be more likely that champions will be motivated to address problems important to them. Therefore, some informal mix of individual motivation, group prioritization, diversity of topics, broad applicability, and expertise in the group will likely inform our agenda.

Dropped Items

  • When the chairs drop a topic from the agenda, a participant may develop it further and request further consideration.
  • If, over time, a project loses momentum, the chairs may drop it from the agenda.

Champion Role

A champion is responsible for:

  • Understanding a chosen problem at a deep level.
  • Developing a plan with a clear set of goals, milestones, and deliverables.
  • Socializing the plan with the Team to help ensure that the work will fall within the scope of W3C, mesh well with other projects, and for process readiness.
  • Executing the plan
  • Communicating progress and obstacles with the Chairs, who may recommend actions such as email updates, teleconference discussions with the whole IG, periodic task force calls, etc.
  • Socializing the problem statement, materials, etc. with appropriate people and groups as part of these activities.

Plan Development

  • Plans may vary greatly depending on the goals and deliverables.
  • Plans should include socialization of deliverables and proposals; see venues for socializing topics.
  • We will place a premium on clear plans with timetables and milestones.

Venues for Socializing Topics

Many plans will involve socialization of ideas and deliverables (problem statements, user stories, use cases, gap analyses, etc.) to gain supporters, improve deliverable quality, and determine how W3C can add value. Champions may choose from a variety of fora outside of the Web Payments IG for socializing a topic (depending on the topic, status of discussion, etc.), including:

  • Existing groups (Working, Interest, Community)
    • Chair-to-chair communication may be the most effective way to interact with a peer group.
  • New Community Groups (e.g., to bring in new stakeholders easily or incubate a specification)
    • Examples: Web Incubation Community Group, Web Payments Community Group, Interledger Community Group
  • W3C Workshops
  • W3C Group Chairs
  • W3C Membership (Advisory Committee)

These may be used in sequence, for example:

  • A participant initiates discussion in the Web Payments Interest Group and volunteers as Champion.
  • The Champion launches a Community Group to continue discussion, do a capability gap analysis, bring in new stakeholders, incubate a specification, etc.
  • If the topic is gaining traction and needs further visibility or face-to-face time, the Champion can request to work with the staff to organize a Workshop (which could also serve as an opportunity for CG participants to meet face-to-face).
    • W3C staff typically seeks Member organizations to Host Workshops.
  • After further traction, the Champion works with the Community Group and Interest Group to draft a charter.

Activities for Getting to Charter

User stories

Problem Statements to Use Cases

  • Definition: a use case is a list of actions or event steps, typically defining the interactions between a role ("actor") and a system, to achieve a goal.
  • Writing Effective Use Cases, by Alistair Cockburn (2000).

Use Cases to Capabilities

  • Analyzing the use cases to identify technology capabilities required to fulfill the use case.
    • A taxonomy of capabilities may be a useful guide for this analysis. See early work on Capabilities 1.0.
  • Documenting the necessary capabilities, those not yet part of the Web, and the current state of activity elsewhere (if any).

Capabilities to Charters

Charter Design Notes

  • Keep charter scope specific and narrow (due to Patent Policy).

Readiness

  • Recommendation Track Readiness Best Practices by the Advisory Board. In particular:
    • Does the work address a real un-met need or missed opportunity for the Web?
    • Does the work start from a concrete proposal that has been socialized with key stakeholders but doesn't discriminate against others?
    • Does standardizing the proposed spec have clear support from those who would need to implement and use the spec for it to be successful?
  • WICG browser vendor proposal template

Tools

Candidate Topics

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/WebCommerce/IG/wiki/index.php?title=WebPaymentIGProcess&oldid=3975"