Re: Call for Consensus on Publishing Web Payments Overview 1.0 as a Working Group Note - RESPONSE REQUESTED

Answer 1: ship it!

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear Web Payments Working Group Participants,
>
> At the F2F in Lisbon there was support [1] for issuing a Call for
> Consensus (CfC) to publish the following as a Working Group Note:
>
>  Web Payments Overview 1.0
>  https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-overview/NOTE/2016-09-30/
>
> We would like to thank the editors for preparing this document.
>
> This is a Call for Consensus to publish it as a Working Group Note.
>
> PLEASE RESPOND to the proposal by 7 October 2016 (1pm ET).
>
> For the co-Chairs,
> Ian Jacobs
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/20-wpwg-minutes#item06
>
> =========
> PROPOSAL
>
> Request that the W3C Director approve the following for publication
> as a Working Group Note:
>
>  Web Payments Overview 1.0
>  https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-overview/NOTE/2016-09-30/
>
> Please indicate one of the following in your response:
>
>  1. Support the proposal.
>
>  2. Request some changes, but support the proposal even
>      if suggested changes are not taken into account.
>
>  3. Request some changes, and do not support the proposal
>      unless the changes are taken into account.
>
>  4. Do not support the proposal (please provide rationale).
>
>  5. Support the consensus of the WPWG.
>
>  6. Abstain.
>
> We invite you to include rationale in your response.
>
> If there is strong consensus by 7 October 2016 (1pm ET) for the
> proposal, it will carry.
>
> ====================
> REMINDERS ABOUT NOTES, CONSENSUS, AND FORMAL OBJECTIONS
>
> * Publication as a Working Group Note does NOT indicate that a document
>   is complete or represents Working Group consensus.
>
> * In case of a decision to publish, the Chairs will request approval
>  to publish a Working Group Note. In this case, if you wish your LACK
>  of support to publish to be conveyed to the W3C Director and
>  reviewed, please include the phrase "FORMAL OBJECTION" [2] in your
>  response and be sure to include substantive arguments or rationale.
>
> * Silence will be taken to mean there is no Formal Objection [2].
>
> * 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.
>
> * 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.
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Consensus
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops