Manu Sporny: We're going to continue going through the proposal; hopefully the last week that we revise it and get buy in. Once we get buy in we're going to invite all the people we wanted to interview. We'll invite in parallel and try to get through interviews as quickly as we can. As soon as we can get through those, we'll cram as much into January as we can. ✪

Manu Sporny: The order of operations this week seems to be: refine proposal, wrap up today, contact all the people that have said they are concerned about the work we're trying to do. Get input before officially starting task force work. Ratify task force, hopefully WPIG will approve the work seeing broad buy in. Then we'll start constructing all the documents in our work plan. Our work plan is the last agenda item for today. We probably won't get to it today based on speed we're going. ✪

Manu Sporny: Other administrivia: we do want some of the new participants on this call to introduce themselves, but do so in IRC: type name, org you're associated with, and why you are interested in this work. ✪

Manu Sporny: Let me know what you guys think of this, but this will be the last call of the year and we'll take a break until January 12th. Trying to respect the holidays and time off and giving people down time. People have been working hard want to give down time. Proposal is that this week is the last for calls and next call with be January. That doesn't mean no work will happen, just no calls until January 12th. ✪

David Ezell: I wanted to sort of understand ... we have an IG meeting on Monday, do you feel you'd be ready for us to vote on the task force on Monday? ✪

Manu Sporny: I think Ian said that he wanted us to get buy in from the folks that have been cranky about this work. That the task force would not be started until we've at least had discussions with them. The hope would be that they'd be interested in the work. ✪

Manu Sporny: It doesn't affect the output of the group. We're not operating officially right now but we don't need to be to collect the data we need. That's just my opinion and a request from W3C staff. If the group feels that we should do something else and we should ask the IG to ratify the group next week that would be one possibility. ✪

David Ezell: Personally I'd like to see this become a task force. It's just a task force, not a big deal. Do you have time frame? ✪

Manu Sporny: Here's the other thing that we should try and do ... we should try and get this task force in front of the IG at SF at the F2F. ✪

Manu Sporny: It would be a great way to co-mingle the people involved in the work. The WPIG is meeting Monday, the WPWG on Tuesday, potentially this group could meet before the IG met (Sunday) but that's not really realistic. Maybe we could do it Thursday but there's a concern that that's too much F2F for all the people. The F2F is at the end of February and we need to figure out if this group is going to have F2F that early and it is a bit premature for this group, we'd really have to get materials together, but it would be missed opportunity I think. We should really get a lot of work done in Jan, and early-mid Feb. Hope would be to go co-locate at Google's facilities as well. ✪

Dave Longley: On the queue to say official task force could be doing interviews - Task Force is supposed to be neutral, I don't see why you can't ask if Task Force be ratified before interviews. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] ✪

David Ezell: I wanted to say sort of what Dave is saying. I kind of understand what Ian is trying to get. I don't want to take up the time with these kinds of logistics. There is an IG meeting on Monday, the next IG meeting won't be until Jan 11th. If we don't approve the task force on the 21st, then we'll need to do it on the 11th. If it seems like it's in the plan ... would you do the interviews before Jan 11th? ✪

Manu Sporny: I think we'd wait to get the whole thing approved until Feb if we did that. ✪

David Ezell: I don't see the problem space as clearly as he does; it seems like you form the task force and you do the work. I'll try and get you a clear answer and circle back around Monday. I don't think waiting until F2F to approve the task force doesn't seem like the right thing. ✪

Eric Korb: What is the advantange of going to Task Force vs Working Group? Or, is that not possible? [scribe assist by Eric Korb] ✪

Manu Sporny: I agree, the only reason we're entertaining that is due to a request from W3C staff but maybe that was just a soft ask instead of a hard ask. ✪

Manu Sporny: Eric, there is no option to going to WG, we have to build the case for WG which is what the Task Force does. ✪

Manu Sporny: Task Force builds case for if W3C can add value and how to structure the work, etc. ✪

Manu Sporny: Task Force is next step. ✪

Eric Korb: Manu, thx ✪

Manu Sporny: Having said all that, do folks feel like we have enough buy in and consensus on the proposal to just vote on it? ✪

Manu Sporny: So the task force is formed? That doesn't mean things are set in stone and we still have interviews, etc. and we can be open to go in another direction. ✪

Manu Sporny: One approach is to get the Task Force approved and then say that we still need to ensure the problem statement is accurate and we have work to do, etc. ✪

Dave Longley: +1 To trying approval at next meeting. ✪

David Ezell: I'm comfortable with "we've done all work except the interviews." Present to the IG, and see what happens. ✪

Greg Kidd: +1 ✪

Brian Sletten: +1 Approval ✪

Daniel C. Burnett: Don't see why not. +1 to trying for approval at next meeting ✪

Carla Casili: +1 For next week ✪

David Ezell: +1 ✪

Stuart Sutton: +1 ✪

Gregg Kellogg: +1 ✪

Eric Korb: +1 ✪

Manu Sporny: If you haven't been on the call before, please type out, in IRC, your name, organization you're associated with, and why this work is important to you. ✪

Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce ✪

Manu Sporny: http://w3c.github.io/vctf/ ✪

Manu Sporny: We're continuing through the proposal. As we demonstrate that there's consensus in this group, the sections along with the modifications we make as we approve them, they are being moved over to the VTCF webpage. Looking there now, you should see the stuff we have consensus for. ✪

Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Deliverables ✪

Manu Sporny: To summarize, we're going to do recorded interviews to bring people in and get opinions. We're going to have a set of questions to give them and have them look at the problem statement, most likely spending an hour on them to get a thorough analysis on what we're doing and make sure we're not missing anything. ✪

Manu Sporny: Many of them are key to identity and credentialing initiatives in the past, experts, we want their input. ✪

Pat Adler: Hi All, my name is Pat Adler, I work for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and am a member of the Web Payments IG. I'm interested in this work as I do quite a bit of work with both payments and identity which I believe would both benefit from an open standard on verifiable claims. ✪

Manu Sporny: We need to identify benefits for financial, education, and healthcare industries. ✪

Manu Sporny: We are going to create a use cases documents. We may create a vision document. ✪

Manu Sporny: That's what this task force is responsible for doing. Once we create that material, the web payments IG will create a charter and a roadmap. They may do that with help from this task force. It will be socialized among the W3C member companies. ✪

Brian Sletten: Does "widely socialized" mean something specific or is it just best effort? ✪

Manu Sporny: I misspoke. It is mandatory that we create them. ✪

Manu Sporny: Folks coming into this group will not be able to do a thorough comparison themselves. We need to do this work for them. This is the first question asked by people coming into the group. ✪

Manu Sporny: "Widely socialized" terminology means we try very hard to get input from advisory committee, chairs of different working groups, w3c membership in general. ✪

Manu Sporny: We're going to ask "what do you think of this? Do you think it's a good charter? Do you have any corrections/comments?" ✪

Brian Sletten: Yes ✪

Manu Sporny: One of the deliverables is a roadmap document with phases. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. ✪

Brian Sletten: +1 To adopting the deliverables ✪

Stuart Sutton: +1 ✪

Gregg Kellogg: +1 ✪

Nate Otto: +1 ✪

Matt Collier: +1 ✪

Dave Longley: +1 ✪

Daniel C. Burnett: +1 ✪

Shane McCarron: +1 ✪

Manu Sporny: +1 ✪

Carla Casili: +1 ✪

Erik Anderson: +1 ✪

David Ezell: +1 ✪

Manu Sporny: Richard: +1 ✪

Dave Longley: When would a capabilities document be created? ✪

Manu Sporny: Good question; I think it would be good to have a capabilities document. The identity/credentialing capabilities is already part of the Web Payments IG capabilities document. ✪

Manu Sporny: .. That could effectively become the VCTF capabilities document ✪

Dave Longley: "Identify benefits to financial, education, and healthcare industries" does this translate into a capabilities document? ✪

David Ezell: Agree with manu. Our desire is to have a single capabilities document across the entire activity, so that anybody who wants to look at it can see which direction the various working groups are running. ✪

Pat Adler: One of the goals for the existing format is to be able to have a section on credentials. The goal is to have that capabilities document rounded out before we get to the February face-to-face meeting. ✪

Pat Adler: It's a little hard to do to get the big picture of everything that's going on, now that there are multiple tracks running in parallel. For anyone who can help, contact padler to get the link to the document and get going. ✪

Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Milestones_.2F_Timelines ✪

Manu Sporny: Erik is bringing up a problem with socializing charters. Folks who react very negatively are giving higher priority than the 25+ people who don't have a problem with the charter. This is just the way it is. W3C has been searching for a solution for this human engineering problem for 2 decades now... ✪

Manu Sporny: We've already had to change this because it's taken longer to spin up this task force than we'd hoped. Nov: Discuss proposal, Dec: socialize proposal. After today's call if proposal is approved, we'll start setting up interviews. January, the task force will hopefully be established ✪

Manu Sporny: In February, we'll continue to publish all of our findings as we do interviews. Just as we publish minutes for this call, we will publish discussions with Brad Hill, Jeff Hodges, etc. as it happens. ✪

Manu Sporny: Then there is a question whether we should co-locate in San Francisco (Google) with the Web Payments IG face-to-face ✪

Manu Sporny: March: revising documents from feedback from face-to-face. ✪

Manu Sporny: April: Finalize charter, so W3C advisory committee isn't surprised when charter comes across their desks for a vote. ✪

Manu Sporny: June: submit charter for W3C Approval ✪

Manu Sporny: The front part of the timeline is very aggressive. The tail end is a bit more leisurely. Often these things take longer than we intend. ✪

Shane McCarron: Have you built in any slack? Is that what you mean when you say it is loose at the end? ✪

Shane McCarron: Thanks! ✪

Nate Otto: This timeline puts a lot of the hard work on this at the same time as I've got a lot of other hard work scheduled on different fronts, so it'll be a hard-working January! ✪

David Ezell: It might be really helpful if you put some of those milestones on the timeline. Like the face-to-face, and the AC meeting (maybe in April) ✪

David Ezell: That is a really important thing to be visible at. Should probably just have a line in the timeline for each. ✪

Manu Sporny: How about 22 Feb Face to Face is a hard date in the timeline? ✪

Dave Longley: http://www.w3.org/participate/meetings ✪

Dave Longley: The link I put in says 20th & 22nd of March in Cambridge, MA ✪

David Ezell: It's better to give people a last chance to raise an objection at an AC meeting than to give them a microphone to go crazy. ✪

Manu Sporny: What that means for this group, is we're going to have to parallelize almost everything. There will be chaos and hand-wringing, but I have seen it turn out well in the past. ✪

Manu Sporny: Ok, I have added two hard dates in there. February Face to Face, and March meeting in Cambridge ✪

Manu Sporny: Any other questions/concerns before we approve the timeline ✪

Brian Sletten: +1 ✪

Gregg Kellogg: +1 ✪

David Ezell: +1 ✪

Nate Otto: +1 ✪

Manu Sporny: +1 ✪

Matt Collier: +1 ✪

Stuart Sutton: +1 ✪

Shane McCarron: +1 ✪

Dave Longley: +1 ✪

Carla Casili: +1 ✪

Manu Sporny: Richard: +1 ✪

Eric Korb: +1 ✪

Daniel C. Burnett: +1 ✪

Erik Anderson: +1 ✪

Manu Sporny: Next up, a review of benefits for stakeholders. This is requested by W3C management. I don't see it as critical that we get it absolutely right. ✪

Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Benefits_for_Stakeholders ✪

Manu Sporny: It is confusing to folks who don't really understand what the upsides are, if we create the ecosystem we are talking about in the proposal. These are the benefits to stakeholders that we've identified by today. There may be more, but this is what we have right now. We expect to identify more things and add to this list. ✪

Manu Sporny: We're not trying to get a perfect list here, just good enough to circulate to other people. ✪

David Ezell: No problem with this list. Go through it. Sight-unseen, a really long list, even if things are important is not as sharp as a strong four-benefit list. ✪

Manu Sporny: I'd argue it would take a long time to craft the right sentence from these bullet points, so we could do it later. ✪

David Ezell: Probably something that we should all agree that you (manu) should do. ✪

Carla Casili: Is there a desired number per main bullet point? ✪

Manu Sporny: Something we should do together. But maybe someone should take a shot at it that we can discuss ✪

Manu Sporny: I don't think so -- there are more benefits for some stakeholder groups than others. ✪

Shane McCarron: We should try to ensure this ties back to the problem statement ✪

Manu Sporny: As you can see for those lists, everyday people have a lot of benefits. This is really where the w3c excels; the everyday person is their customer. ✪

Manu Sporny: Agree that this should tie back to the problem statement. ✪

Carla Casili: Yes ✪

Manu Sporny: One of the stakeholder groups we have added recently is "People": "employees, professionals, property owners, legal guardians..." ✪

Manu Sporny: Listing benefits from ... https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/VerifiableClaimsTaskForce#Benefits_for_Stakeholders : no provider lock-in, portable usage, privacy-enhanced sharing mechanisms (It's up to the person to share), give people control of confidential informations, elimination of repetitive input on websites (shipping address, email address), reduction in the need to input PII (SSN, Credit Card number, or other secret numbers)... ✪

Manu Sporny: Better usability for sites that need to collect data: Part of this is regulatory compliance, part of this is better accessibility for disabled users. ✪

Manu Sporny: Does anyone see a benefit that we missed? ✪

Dave Longley: Should something about lowering the cost of managing, acquiring, maintaining these things, be something to touch upon? ✪

Brian Sletten: I will think about language to propose. ✪

Manu Sporny: For Erik's suggestion: try to wordsmith it ✪

Shane McCarron: Cost-reductions through credential persistence and verifiability ✪

Shane McCarron: Yes ✪

Manu Sporny: Shane's comment is in relation to what bsletten ✪

Shane McCarron: Maybe "machine verifiability" to highlight capability ✪

Shane McCarron: (Nice) ✪

Manu Sporny: On to Issuers: DMV, government, corporations, education providers... ✪

Manu Sporny: Level competitive playing field (not just super-providers). Proposal is that there could be easy entry for new competitors in spaces where verifiable claims are necessary ✪

Manu Sporny: Richer set of verifiable claims to choose from -- overall, more powerful than if different sections of the market were siloed between different issuers. ✪

Manu Sporny: Avoid vendor-specific solutions and lock-in ✪

Manu Sporny: Any other benefits to issuers? ✪

Manu Sporny: Moving on to consumers ✪

Manu Sporny: Consumers are organizations who accept verifiable claims to provide some good, privilege, or service to holders of verifiable claims. ✪

Dave Longley: Issuers: potential for reduced infrastructure needs ✪

Carla Casili: Are we going to be revisiting these at a later date? ✪

Carla Casili: Great, thx. ✪

Manu Sporny: How about "potential for reduced infrastructure needs" ✪

Dave Longley: User-centric "architecture" instead of "focus". ✪

Manu Sporny: Moving onto consumers. 4min left. ✪

Dave Longley: "Ability and choice" ✪

Eric Korb: Happy to stay on past hr ✪

Dave Longley: Greater "diverisity and trust" ✪

Dave Longley: Maybe try "Increased ability to trust the authenticity of claims made by a diversifying set of issuers" ✪

Dave Longley: "Increased diversity and choice when establishing trust in authenticity of verifiable claims" ✪

Manu Sporny: Moving on to ID providers... level playing field for services competing to demonstrate that they are the best place for users to store their verifiable claims ✪

Manu Sporny: Value-added services: because you're storing personally identifiable information with them, you can potentially be offered benefits. ✪

Manu Sporny: Finalizing for this call, the list of benefits ✪

Brian Sletten: +1 ✪

Dave Longley: +1 (Should add that infrastructure needs are also reduced for consumers and IdPs) ✪

Daniel C. Burnett: +1 ✪

Eric Korb: +1 ✪

Gregg Kellogg: +1 ✪

Matt Collier: +1 ✪

Shane McCarron: +1 ✪

Eric Korb: +Q ✪

Manu Sporny: +1 ✪

Erik Anderson: +1 ✪

David Ezell: +1 ✪

Carla Casili: +1 To this version with future revisions as needed ✪

Stuart Sutton: +1 ✪

David I. Lehn: +1 ✪

Brian Sletten: Very minor nit. I'm generally sympathetic to prescriptivism, but I find the use of 'fora' to be off-putting. I realize it is correct, but 'forums' are also recognized as legit. I think we should use the more common term. ✪

Manu Sporny: The problem statement makes it clear we're making a user-centric approach here. What we're saying is that's not a good scalable way of addressing that problem. ✪

Eric Korb: K, thx ✪

Carla Casili: Sorry, hard stop ✪

Carla Casili: Thanks. ✪

Shane McCarron: Me needs to run - good meeting! ✪

Eric Korb: I saw some concern in a previous meeting that there wasn't concensus around that focus. manu: There was wide support -- don't think that's a bad thing, but we can talk more offline. ✪

Manu Sporny: Next call will be January 12. Hope you all have a decent bit of downtime. ✪

Eric Korb: Happy Hollidays! ✪