- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 10:10:09 -0500
- To: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Dear Web Payments Working Group, Based on our discussion in Chicago [1], here is my understanding of our upcoming plans. Please note the important 6 April meeting [2] when we expect to "freeze" the issues list for CR. Feel free to ask questions on this thread; we can also discuss at this week’s call [2]. Ian [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/24-wpwg-minutes#item05 [2] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20170406 ============= Getting to CR About: * Payment Request API * Payment Method Identifiers Plan: * Between now and 4 April (ideally; 6 April if needed), please indicate which issues you think should be addressed by the group. PR API issues: https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues PMI issues: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-method-identifiers/issues Please use the GitHub milestone "CR" to mark those of your issues you feel should be addressed before starting CR. If you cannot set the milestone, please send email to the group’s public mailing list indicating your preference that the issue be part of the CR list. We will review the that list on 6 April and determine what's in and what's not. NOTE: That does not mean you can never raise issues again. However, once we enter CR it is likely we will postpone nearly all feature requests to another version of the specification. (The one exception I have in mind relates to VAT billing per FTF discussion.) The spec may still change based on implementation experience (and issues raised in light of implementation experience. * 6 April: WPWG teleconference when we freeze the issues list. * After that meeting we will do our best as a group to resolve issues. Where we cannot resolve an issue, we may have consensus to postpone. Where someone is not satisfied with a decision about an issue, they can object during the call for consensus and we can share that objection with the Director in the Candidate Recommendation transition request. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions about the W3C Process. * I don't know how long it will take to go through the issues list and update the specifications. When we are ready, the Chairs will issue a call for consensus (CfC) to go to Candidate Recommendation. That CfC will likely last one week. As a reminder, here's what a CfC looks like (this one was for FPWD): https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Apr/0012 * If there are formal objections during the CfC, we will try to resolve them. Those that we cannot resolve we will present to the Director in the request to advance to CR. * The time required for the Director to respond to the request to advance to CR will depend on the number and nature of any formal objections. If there are none, I expect it will be rather quick (e.g., about a week). * If the Director supports advancing to CR (potentially overriding some Formal Objections) it will be a few more days before we publish the specifications. NOTES: * My guess is that the SOONEST we would go to CR would be around 16 May. That calculation is based on: - 3 weeks after 6 April to resolve issues and update spec - 1 week CfC - 1 week Director decision - A few days to prepare everything for publication * At the FTF meeting I detected support for communications around the CR announcement. I have begun to work with the W3C Marcomm Team. * We should also plan to publish Basic Card when we publish the CR specs. It can be a Working Draft to indicate that we are still working on it. Whenever PR API and PMI go to Recommendation, we would publish Basic Card as a "Note" indicating its stable state. * Recap of anticipated text in status section of PR API Candidate Recommendation: - PR API Feature at risk: currencySystem - PR API Exit criterion: Two implementations from two different vendors on both mobile and desktop. - PR API: Set expectation that we will get implementation experience of payment apps (native and/or web based) to demonstrate stability and usefulness of PR API. - PMI Exit criterion: At least FPWD of payment method manifest spec =============== Getting to FPWD About: * Payment Handler API Plan: * Between now and 6 April, please indicate which issues you think should be (1) ideally resolved before FPWD or (2) at least logged in the FPWD as issues. Payment Handler API issues: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/issues * 6 April: WPWG teleconference when we freeze the issues list. (I don't know whether we will have time for both the CR issues and the FPWD issues; if we don't, then I think we postpone the FPWD discussion one week.) * After that, the task force endeavors to resolve the issues that we want to close before FPWD. Suppose we take 2 weeks to do that. * The Task force updates the specification to reflect the state of issues. * We issue a CfC for one week. We present any Formal Objections to the Director in a request to become a FPWD. * If the Director supports advancing to CR (potentially overriding some Formal Objections) it will be a few more days before we publish the specification. NOTES: * My guess is that the SOONEST we would go to FPWD would be around 4 May. That calculation is based on: - 2 weeks after 6 April to resolve issues and update spec - 1 week CfC - 4 days Director decision - A few days to prepare everything for publication * That timeline may grow if people prefer to focus on PR API. However, it would be my preference that Payment Handler advance to FPWD before PR API goes to CR. I would not object if they advanced at the same time, but it will require more resources to do all of that at once. ============= FAQ Q. What is the significance of 6 April? A. We would like to freeze the list of issues that we plan to address BEFORE the chairs issue the call for consensus for PR API and PMI to advance to CR. Q. Does that mean I cannot raise issues on PR API once it goes to CR? A. Specifications often change in CR based on implementation experience. Thus, issues that arise as a result of implementation experience may lead to changes in the specification. However, once the specification advances to CR, people should avoid seeking new features in the specification. Also, people should not expect to reopen closed issues unless there is significant new information. Q. Is the Basic Card spec going to CR? A. No. It will remain a “Working Draft” until PR API and PMI become Recommendations, at which point we will publish it in its stable state as a “Note”. Q. Is the Tokenized Card Payment Spec going to FPWD? A. Not yet. We have taken it up as a work item, but the Task Force (led by Roy) will revamp the specification first based on FTF discussion. Q. Is the Credit Transfer Payment Spec going to FPWD? A. Not yet. The task force will seek more implementer commitments first (based on FTF discussion.) Q. Is the Payment Method Manifest Spec going to FPWD? A. Not yet. There is a new proposal from Zach and Max that has not yet been turned into specification text. -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 15:10:18 UTC