W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Decision [Was: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG]

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:11:11 +0200
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <571085FF.80602@gmail.com>
On 2016-04-14 19:27, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> Dear WPWG,
> As discussed on the teleconference today [1], on behalf of the Chairs I’m pleased to record the decision to publish
> three specifications as FPWDs based on your feedback [2]:
>    * Payment Request API
>    * Payment Method Identifiers
>    * Basic Card Payment
> If all goes well, these will be published on 21 April.

I wonder how many of the members who supported the publication realized that the
Web Payment API core concept (orchestrating payment method selection and execution),
effectively requires a *complete rewrite* of these parts of a Web shop, in addition
to introducing a new registration step for legacy payment systems.

I perfectly well understand the motives for this rather extreme measure, but all
approaches have downsides and those haven't been discussed much.

IMO, it had been wiser targeting "low-hanging fruit" like being able calling the
countless number of custom "App"-based [payment] schemes out there, from the Web.
This would also tap into an existing, pretty big source of payment innovation money.
Practically "everybody" wants to have a Wallet...


> We will continue to work as a group to increase support for the architecture specification before proposing
> it again as a FPWD.
> Thank you for responding to the Call for Consensus and congratulations on your progress as a Working Group,
> On behalf of the Co-Chairs,
> Ian Jacobs, Team Contact
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/04/14-wpwg-minutes#item01
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/CFC_20140412
>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 2:29 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.
>> 	• 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
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 15 April 2016 06:11:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:15 UTC