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

Re: [Minutes] 23-24 February face-to-face meeting

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:39:55 -0500
Message-ID: <56D07FDB.2050500@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-payments-wg@w3.org
On 02/25/2016 11:37 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> Raw minutes from the face-to-face meeting are available:
>
> 23 Feb: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-wpwg-minutes 24 Feb:
> https://www.w3.org/2016/02/24-wpwg-minutes
>
> I’ve made some small editorial fixes but not reviewed in detail.
> Please send me any fix requests.

> manu: it's obvious to me that browser want to start with their
> proposal ... CG spec was an attempt to give input to the browsers ...
> proposal: use the Google-Microsoft proposal

This is a very watered down version of what I said, and doesn't capture
what went on in the room:

manu: It's obvious to me that the browser vendors will not go with any
proposal but the one that they put forward, so what the WG wants doesn't
really matter in this particular case.

manu: I find it offensive that Adrian Bateman (from Microsoft) says that
he doesn't understand the Web Payments CG proposal and couldn't work
with it since he doesn't understand it. It's been public for months and
all he had to do was ask about parts of it and we would have explained
it to him. The CG took the time to analyze the Microsoft/Google
proposal, we put in effort to understand it, and we submitted 25+ issues
on it (which haven't been integrated into the issues in that spec). The
browser vendors haven't done the basic due diligence to read and raise
issues on the Web Payments Community Group spec. This has not been an
equal exchange of intellectual due diligence.

manu: In addition, I think there is a large amount of intellectual
dishonesty going on here on the part of the browser vendors, but the WG
is really powerless to do anything about it because the browser vendors
are going to do whatever they want at the end of the day. So, there are
really only four opinions in the room that matter - Microsoft, Google,
Apple, and Mozilla.

manu: This is typical W3C browsers-vs-everyone-else politics - it's
about control and the browser vendors want the control. We're no longer
having a technical discussion, this is politics. Speaking as a
non-browser W3C member, and as the Chair of the Web Payments Community
Group, I'm really fucking pissed off about what is happening here. This
is bullshit.

manu: So, that said, I see two choices in front of us. Spend the next
day of face to face time slugging it out over the specs w/ the browser
vendors digging their heels in more and more OR pick their spec and
get on to discussing issues, which we really need to do to get a First
Public Working Draft out by the end of March. I don't think we have any
choice but to kill the CG specs at this point.

manu: So, here's the only workable proposal that I see: Abandon the CG
specifications and pick the Google/Microsoft proposal as the base
specification so we can get some spec text under the control of the
Working Group and then start processing issues.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Identity Credentials and Web Login
http://manu.sporny.org/2014/identity-credentials/
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 16:38:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 26 February 2016 16:38:53 UTC