- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 10:10:09 -0500
- To: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Dear Web Payments Working Group,
Based on our discussion in Chicago [1], here is my understanding
of our upcoming plans. Please note the important 6 April meeting [2]
when we expect to "freeze" the issues list for CR.
Feel free to ask questions on this thread; we can also discuss at this
week’s call [2].
Ian
[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/24-wpwg-minutes#item05
[2] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170406
=============
Getting to CR
About:
* Payment Request API
* Payment Method Identifiers
Plan:
* Between now and 4 April (ideally; 6 April if needed), please indicate which
issues you think should be addressed by the group.
PR API issues:
https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues
PMI issues:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/issues
Please use the GitHub milestone "CR" to mark those of your issues
you feel should be addressed before starting CR. If you cannot set the
milestone, please send email to the group’s public mailing list indicating
your preference that the issue be part of the CR list.
We will review the that list on 6 April and determine what's
in and what's not.
NOTE: That does not mean you can never raise issues again. However,
once we enter CR it is likely we will postpone nearly all feature
requests to another version of the specification. (The one exception
I have in mind relates to VAT billing per FTF discussion.) The spec
may still change based on implementation experience (and issues
raised in light of implementation experience.
* 6 April: WPWG teleconference when we freeze the issues list.
* After that meeting we will do our best as a group to resolve
issues. Where we cannot resolve an issue, we may have consensus
to postpone. Where someone is not satisfied with a decision
about an issue, they can object during the call for consensus
and we can share that objection with the Director in the
Candidate Recommendation transition request. Don't hesitate to
contact me if you have questions about the W3C Process.
* I don't know how long it will take to go through the issues list and
update the specifications. When we are ready, the Chairs will issue
a call for consensus (CfC) to go to Candidate Recommendation. That
CfC will likely last one week. As a reminder, here's what a CfC
looks like (this one was for FPWD):
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Apr/0012
* If there are formal objections during the CfC, we will try to resolve
them. Those that we cannot resolve we will present to the Director
in the request to advance to CR.
* The time required for the Director to respond to the request to
advance to CR will depend on the number and nature of any formal
objections. If there are none, I expect it will be rather quick
(e.g., about a week).
* If the Director supports advancing to CR (potentially overriding
some Formal Objections) it will be a few more days before we
publish the specifications.
NOTES:
* My guess is that the SOONEST we would go to CR would be around 16 May.
That calculation is based on:
- 3 weeks after 6 April to resolve issues and update spec
- 1 week CfC
- 1 week Director decision
- A few days to prepare everything for publication
* At the FTF meeting I detected support for communications around the CR
announcement. I have begun to work with the W3C Marcomm Team.
* We should also plan to publish Basic Card when we publish the
CR specs. It can be a Working Draft to indicate that we are still
working on it. Whenever PR API and PMI go to Recommendation, we
would publish Basic Card as a "Note" indicating its stable state.
* Recap of anticipated text in status section of PR API Candidate Recommendation:
- PR API Feature at risk: currencySystem
- PR API Exit criterion: Two implementations from two different vendors on both mobile and desktop.
- PR API: Set expectation that we will get implementation experience of
payment apps (native and/or web based) to demonstrate stability and
usefulness of PR API.
- PMI Exit criterion: At least FPWD of payment method manifest spec
===============
Getting to FPWD
About:
* Payment Handler API
Plan:
* Between now and 6 April, please indicate which issues you think
should be (1) ideally resolved before FPWD or (2) at least logged
in the FPWD as issues.
Payment Handler API issues:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues
* 6 April: WPWG teleconference when we freeze the issues list.
(I don't know whether we will have time for both the CR issues and
the FPWD issues; if we don't, then I think we postpone the FPWD
discussion one week.)
* After that, the task force endeavors to resolve the issues that
we want to close before FPWD. Suppose we take 2 weeks to do that.
* The Task force updates the specification to reflect the state
of issues.
* We issue a CfC for one week. We present any Formal Objections to the
Director in a request to become a FPWD.
* If the Director supports advancing to CR (potentially overriding
some Formal Objections) it will be a few more days before we
publish the specification.
NOTES:
* My guess is that the SOONEST we would go to FPWD would be around 4 May.
That calculation is based on:
- 2 weeks after 6 April to resolve issues and update spec
- 1 week CfC
- 4 days Director decision
- A few days to prepare everything for publication
* That timeline may grow if people prefer to focus on PR API. However, it
would be my preference that Payment Handler advance to FPWD before
PR API goes to CR. I would not object if they advanced at the same time,
but it will require more resources to do all of that at once.
=============
FAQ
Q. What is the significance of 6 April?
A. We would like to freeze the list of issues that we plan to address BEFORE the chairs issue the call for consensus
for PR API and PMI to advance to CR.
Q. Does that mean I cannot raise issues on PR API once it goes to CR?
A. Specifications often change in CR based on implementation experience. Thus, issues that arise as a result of
implementation experience may lead to changes in the specification. However, once the specification advances to
CR, people should avoid seeking new features in the specification. Also, people should not expect to reopen closed
issues unless there is significant new information.
Q. Is the Basic Card spec going to CR?
A. No. It will remain a “Working Draft” until PR API and PMI become Recommendations, at which point we will
publish it in its stable state as a “Note”.
Q. Is the Tokenized Card Payment Spec going to FPWD?
A. Not yet. We have taken it up as a work item, but the Task Force (led by Roy) will revamp the specification first
based on FTF discussion.
Q. Is the Credit Transfer Payment Spec going to FPWD?
A. Not yet. The task force will seek more implementer commitments first (based on FTF discussion.)
Q. Is the Payment Method Manifest Spec going to FPWD?
A. Not yet. There is a new proposal from Zach and Max that has not yet been turned into specification text.
--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 15:10:18 UTC