Re: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG

I am also a +1 for publishing all.

-Zach

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Rouslan Solomakhin <rouslan@google.com>
wrote:

> 👍 to all.
> On Apr 5, 2016 12:30 PM, "Adrian Hope-Bailie" <adrian@hopebailie.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish one or more documents as
>> First Public Working Drafts (FPWD) of the Web Payments Working Group.
>>
>>    - Proposal 1: Publish "Payment Request API" as a FPWD
>>       -
>>       https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/paymentrequest.html
>>    - Proposal 2: Publish "Payment Request API Architecture" as a FPWD
>>       -
>>       https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/architecture.html
>>    - Proposal 3: Publish "Payment Method Identifiers" as a FPWD
>>       -
>>       https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/method-identifiers.html
>>    - Proposal 4: Publish "Basic Card Payment" as a FPWD
>>       -
>>       https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b37970994f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/basic-card-payment.html
>>
>> For each proposal:
>>
>>    - We invite responses on this thread to each of the proposals.
>>    - Silence will be taken to mean there is no Formal Objection [1], but
>>    positive responses are encouraged. Publication as a FPWD does NOT indicate
>>    that a document is complete or represent Working Group consensus.
>>    - If there are no Formal Objections by 12 April 2016 (1pm EDT), the
>>    proposal will carry and the Chairs will request that the Director approve
>>    publication as FPWD(s).
>>
>> The W3C Director takes Formal Objections seriously, and therefore they
>> typically require significant time and effort to address. Therefore, please
>> limit any Formal Objections to issues related to the scope of these
>> documents rather than technical content where the Working Group has not yet
>> made a decision. Please include substantive arguments or rationale for
>> consideration by the Director.
>>
>> If there are Formal Objections, the Chairs plan to contact the
>> individual(s) who made the Formal Objection to see whether there are
>> changes that would address the concern and increase consensus to publish.
>> Depending on the number and nature of the Formal Objections, the Chairs
>> will either make a decision either to pursue FPWD and report the Formal
>> Objections to the Director (as required by W3C Process), or to postpone
>> publication until there is greater consensus to publish.
>>
>> If there is a decision not to publish a document, we will adjust our
>> communications to let people know about the Editor's Drafts and the
>> decision to delay their publication as FPWDs.
>>
>> NOTES:
>>
>>    - Publication of a FPWD is a signal to the broader community that we
>>    are seeking review of the specification(s) in their early stages. To frame
>>    that discussion, we plan to publish a blog post with the publication:
>>       - https://www.w3.org/2016/03/15-wpwg-blog.txt
>>    - Publication of a FPWD triggers an event under the W3C Patent Policy.
>>    - The Working Group discussed this Call for Consensus at its 17 March
>>    2016 teleconference
>>       - https://www.w3.org/2016/03/17-wpwg-minutes
>>
>> For the Chairs, Adrian Hope-Bailie
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Consensus
>>
>