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

On 15 April 2016 at 08:11, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

That's not true at all. Using the API is a) entirely optional and b) can be
added as a first step with a fallback to the traditional payments page.

For a merchant or PSP it is very easy to phase this in as failure will be
invisible to the user so a fallback is graceful.

Further, the payment method specs being written by the WG will bootstrap
the process of defining payment methods by setting standards for the most
commonly used payment methods from the outset.

Finally, we expect browsers to offer "built-in" payment apps initially that
will leverage the stored credit card details they already hold for their
users bootstrapping the process even further.


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

What would you say the downsides are that have been under-discussed?


>
> 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...
>

Except that's exactly what we have done. The API is intended to be a
mechanism to bridge from the Web to a payment app which may be another web
based app or may be a native app or even a headless service.



>
> thanx,
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>>
>>
>>
>>
>