Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)

> Premature assertion by @ianbjacobs that the Google/Microsoft proposal is what we're going to adopt "Can you tell me what changes would be necessary to the Google/Microsoft proposal to ensure that it does not "forbid" someone from passing JSON-LD?" (#27 (comment)) - Where was that coming from?

Sorry to disagree, but I'm not sure how that quote could be taken to imply any kind of preference. I could ask you what changes would be necessary to your proposal to support shipping, but that wouldn't mean I favoured it. I think you might be inferring something that isn't there.

It is probably better if the rest of your points are addressed by the chairs, but I will say that if you're going to raise the issue then I think it's only fair that I point out both yourself and David seem to be doing all kinds of work over at http://spec-ops.io that would impact our work but hasn't been raised or discussed in the WG or IG.

It seems a little strange to complain about transparency and back channeling whilst creating an entirely separate organization with a chair of the IG that lists [web payments work](http://spec-ops.io/projects) under its remit.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/89#issuecomment-186757317