Re: Note on CfC

On 08/18/2016 01:23 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> 1. Publishing is a more significant step than is being asserted.
> If we publish these specs all members of the WG must take time to 
> both review the specs and assess their company's IP holdings to 
> ensure they make the necessary disclosures and exclusions related to
>  this new work.

I know that many of those responding have already reviewed the specs, so
that's work that has already been done.

It's true that SOME organizations will need to check their company's IP
portfolio, but that's work that is typically done by the legal team, not
the participants in the group. It's also work that doesn't need to be
done at all if you already know that you have no patents in the area and
are not going to exclude any patents.

> This means it is not possible for this work to be done in parallel 
> unless it continues as editor's drafts.

Not accurate, since IP review is typically not done by members of the
group but by the legal team or others handling IP in the organization.
It's possible to do this work in parallel and it seems that a growing
number of members in the group agree with that position.

> Publishing this work necessarily forces the WHOLE group to invest 
> time in these deliverables which is exactly what the editors agreed 
> they would not do when the proposals were adopted as editor's 
> drafts.

It does not force the group to do anything it doesn't want to. All of
this is voluntary, if the group doesn't want to do an FPWD at this time
they will vote accordingly and the editor's will respect the consensus
of the group.

Your assertion that the editor's are not keeping their word is
inaccurate. The WG moved to issue a call for a CfC at the F2F, there
were no objections to doing so at that time. We're doing a CfC now. I
don't understand why the editors are being singled out when the motion
to perform a CfC was a group decision with no objections?

In addition, the companies involved in these specifications have not
requested any telecon or W3C TPAC F2F time. We're trying very hard to
not "distract" the group with discussions around these documents.

Again, this whole conversation is happening because the group decided to
make a motion on a CfC. Every member had an opportunity to object to the
call for the CfC and to the CfC itself. There were no objections. We're
proceeding according to the will of the group and will continue to do
so. We respect the consensus of the group.

> While I acknowledge that we originally agreed to postpone this work 
> until June, given that nobody else in the group but the editors has 
> expressed any interest in the work, I think it is justified that this
> is postponed further until the higher priority work is complete.

I hope the demonstration of support for going to FPWD with these specs
helps convince you that there is broader interest in moving these
specifications forward than has been implied by this email. Those
involved in the HTTP API and HTTP Core Messages specs will continue to
respect the request by some group members to focus on the Payment Apps
API, Payment Method Identifiers, and Browser APIs until they're a bit
more fully baked.

> 2. This CfC is not about IF it is about WHEN
> The majority of the group seems content that we should do this work. 
> However the debate about whether we are mandated to do so or not 
> based upon our charter has been a red herring that has distracted 
> from the crux of this vote. This vote is not about IF we should do 
> the work it is about whether it is right for us to publish this work
>  NOW.

With respect, and with the benefit of experience at W3C on how
specifications are pushed off until they're dropped, I disagree that
it's as black and white as what's stated above.

> I appeal to the editors to put their own interests aside for a few 
> months and focus on helping the group get the priority work done so 
> that we can refocus on HTTP API when we have got payment request, 
> payment apps and payment method identifiers to CR.

Please don't make this personal. It won't help us make progress.

The editor's are committed to executing upon the consensus of the group.

We've heard a number of organizations that are concerned about Web
Payments being primarily routed through the browser and the HTTP API is
an attempt at ensuring that there are options. The motivation is a level
playing field and that's something we've repeatedly heard the group get

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern

Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 15:42:17 UTC