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

Adrian, WG,

 

I am a +1 to proposals one, three and four

 

I am a -1 for proposal two, the Architecture document on the basis that I believe the title and content are likely to mislead and will need significant rework during the integration of the HTTP API into the overall Architecture.

 

I would have no objection if it were referenced as an Editors draft (as opposed to FPWD) with a note explaining this. I feel this would more clearly articulate the groups direction compared with the current, fairly minor, reference of the HTTP API in the associated blog post.

 

This does not constitute a formal objection, but a suggestion for improved clarity of communication of the WG’s position and future intent.

 

Regards,

Matt 

 

 

 

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie [mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com] 
Sent: 05 April 2016 20:29
To: Payments WG
Subject: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG

 

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus