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

@nickjshearer wrote:
> Sorry to disagree, but I'm not sure that quote can 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.

That's a fair point. The only reason I'm inferring is because there are a number of other items that have raised red flags for me and I'm trying to see if they raised red flags for anyone else.

> It seems a little strange to bring up transparency whilst creating an entirely separate organization with a chair of the IG that lists web payments work under its remit. Of course, those efforts may well be very worth while...it's just I don't know anything about them.

We've been asked by W3C staff to not talk about Spec Ops yet. The effort doesn't officially launch until Monday, so there's no "there" there yet. That said, it's not a secret and we'd be happy to discuss how we're trying to help the group w/ funded editors, test writers, and open source implementers during breaks or dinners (non face-to-face time)

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/89#issuecomment-186967774