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

On 5 April 2016 at 21:29, 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
>

No formal objections from me.

This work does seem to be browser centric, which is limiting.  The build up
work in the community group I felt was more wide ranging, flexible,
extensible and standards compliant.  However, hopefully that work will
continue in parallel, with parts at the intersection reused.

In general the web principle of using URIs to name things isnt done as much
as it could be.  For example with addresses and currencies.  At some point
an address in the examples is left at "XXXX" which I think is too vague to
really be informative.  But given the early stage, I would hope that could
be fixed over time.

I do think Editors names should be removed, at this point, if they havent
done any editing.


> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Consensus
>