Issue Prioritisation Explainer

[mattsaxon]

In an effort to assist with prioritisation and focus for the Working Group post FPWD, I've reviewed the current list of open issues (54 at time of writing)

So we can see the maturity of the documents, I've labelled issues where there is a clear specific document that they apply to as follows;

Document Labels:
"Doc:PaymentRequestAPIArchitecture"
"Doc:PaymentRequestAPI"
"Doc:PaymentMethodIdentifers"
"Doc:BasicCardPayment"

Furthermore, I've categorised the issues into some broad categories based on the type of issue as follows;

Type Labels:
General Editorial
Native Support
Technical
Security/Privacy
Extensibility/Versioning
Functionality

Lastly, I've applied a priority to them as follows using milestones;

Milestones:
"Priority: High"
"Priority: Medium"
"Priority: Low"

I've assessed these priorities based partly on the "type", but also applied some more (personal) logic to this as below;

General Editorial: Low
Native Support: Medium
Technical: Mostly medium, some lows
Security/Privacy: High
Extensibility/Versioning: High
Functionality: Varies

Overall this gives us the following breakdown of categories at the time of writing;

Document Labels:
"Doc:PaymentRequestAPIArchitecture" 3
"Doc:PaymentRequestAPI" 3
"Doc:PaymentMethodIdentifers" 0
"Doc:BasicCardPayment" 3

Type Labels:
General Editorial 6
Native Support 1
Technical 8
Security/Privacy 7
Extensibility/Versioning 14
Functionality 20

Milestones:
"Priority: High" 16
"Priority: Medium" 13
"Priority: Low" 16

We can discuss at the WG meeting on Thursday how to interpret (and refine) this data.

[fredMeignien]

Thanks Matt, this classification grandly facilitates understanding and browsing of our state of the art.

[dlongley]

We might want labels based on elements from the payments architecture, like "Payment App", "Payment Mediator", etc.

[adrianhopebailie]

Thanks @mattsaxon for this. I have started triaging these and updating labels and priorities as I go.