Decision [Was: Call for Consensus on Publishing Payment Handler API as a First Public Working Draft ...]

Dear WPWG,

At today’s call [1], AdrianHB observed support to publish Payment Handler API as a FPWD and no objections.
We recorded a decision to advance to FPWD. Congratulations to the Working Group. The editors will prepare 
the specification and transition request to the Director.

Thank you,

Ian

[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/05/11-wpwg-minutes.html#item01


> On May 3, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Web Payments Working Group Participants,
> 
> At the Chicago face-to-face meeting there was support [1] for issuing a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish Payment Handler API as a First Public Working Draft. Since the meeting the editors have worked to resolve several issues and include issue markers in the text.
> 
> This is a Call for Consensus to publish:
> 
> Payment Handler API
> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-handler/tree/fpwd_20170502
> 
> Readable view:
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-handler/fpwd_20170502/index.html?specStatus=FPWD
> 
> We would like to thank the editors for preparing this document.
> 
> PLEASE RESPOND to the proposal by 11 May 2017 (10am ET).
> 
> For the co-Chairs,
> Ian Jacobs
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/03/24-wpwg-minutes#item05
> 
> =========
> PROPOSAL
> 
> That the Web Payments Working Group request that the W3C Director approve the 
> above specification as a First Public Working Draft on the Recommendation Track.
> 
> 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 Web Payments Working Group.
> 
> 6. Abstain.
> 
> We invite you to include rationale in your response.
> 
> If there is strong consensus by 11 May 2017 (10am ET) for the proposal, it will carry.
> 
> ====================
> REMINDERS ABOUT NOTES, CONSENSUS, AND FORMAL OBJECTIONS
> 
> * Publication as a First Public Working Draft 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 from the W3C
>  Director to publish a First Public Working Draft. In this case, if you wish your LACK
>  of support to publish to be conveyed to the 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 them to see whether there are changes that 
>  would address the concern and increase consensus to publish.
> 
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#Consensus
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel: +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 718 260 9447

Received on Thursday, 11 May 2017 15:09:28 UTC