Re: Call for Consensus to Publish a Group Note- RESPONSE REQUESTED by 29 November 2017

> On Nov 17, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/15/2017 09:46 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> I'm supportive on the proviso that the spec is "gutted" (see [1],
>> for example).
> 
> -1, publishing a gutted NOTE for work that we want to incubate seems
> pointless. Also, I question whether W3C publishing documents that
> effectively state "Nothing to see here" is useful.

Please note that the previous versions exist. I understand the proposal to write
an empty Note to be a heads-up and avoid people stumbling on material and
thinking it is more mature than it is.

> 
> Alternate proposal:
> 
> 1. Create a Web Commerce CG.

-1 as I don’t think it is necessary.

> 2. Hand the HTTP API spec over to them.

I’d rather see it incubated in an existing CG.

> 3. Redirect the TR space link to the ED in the WCCG.

I have no problem saying in the stub:

 * The WG has discontinued the work
 * It is being incubated over here.

> 
> If that fails to garner consensus, do the gutted note pointing to the ED
> HTTP API spec in the WCCG.
> 
> You can go here to support the creation of the Web Commerce Community
> Group (search for Web Commerce):

I would like to recommend against that until we’ve had further discussion of its necessity.

Ian

> 
> https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The State of W3C Web Payments in 2017
> http://manu.sporny.org/2017/w3c-web-payments/
> 

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

Received on Friday, 17 November 2017 15:21:25 UTC