Draft status section [Was: Call for Consensus to Publish a Group Note]

Dear WPWG,

At TPAC there was strong consensus to publish this specification as a Note. I have not heard pushback to that overall direction.

This thread has raised the following question: what should that Note look like? My read is that there are currently 
two options on the table:

 - It should look like the current draft [1], just with an updated status section.
 - It should have the details removed so that readers focus on the rationale for publication as a Note, but
   still make available the previous draft for those who want to review the actual spec contents. Marcos referred
   to the Pick Contacts Intent specification [2], which takes this approach.

To help make our discussion concrete, I have drafted a status section for HTTP API 1.0. This takes the “less is more”
approach of allowing the reader to focus on the rationale for publication as a note.

Please read:
  https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/http_api_note_status

My goals were to:

 * Explain the context for publication as a Note so that future readers will know what happened and what can or should not be done with the specification.
 * Reduce the content to let the reader focus on the context.
 * Make it easy for readers looking for the actual content of the spec to find it (one link away).

Also, to make it easier for other groups to take up this work, we should be sure to publish the Note under the 
W3C Software and Document Notice and License [3]. Currently the Working Draft is published under a less
permissive license.

I welcome comments on the draft status section, both changes to the language and expressions of support (or lack of
support) for this approach. We’ll discuss this at the 30 November teleconference [4].

Finally, the question has come up whether we can “not do anything,” merely leaving the specification as a Working Draft.
I note that the W3C Process recommends [5] that "If a Working group decides, or the Director requires, the Working Group 
to discontinue work on a technical report before completion, the Working Group should publish the document as a Working Group Note.”
Beyond that guidance, I think it could send a confusing message to the community if our charter no longer included this work
in scope but we left the specification in limbo. While I am not a lawyer, it might also raise IPR concerns until definitively parked
as a Note.

I look forward to the discussion,

Ian

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-webpayments-http-api-20160915/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-contacts-api-20140114/
[3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
[4] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Agenda-20171130
[5] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#tr-end

> On Nov 15, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Web Payments Working Group Participants,
> 
> Based on consensus at our November face-to-face meeting [1], this is a Call for Consensus 
> to publish the following specification as a Group Note rather than advancing it to Recommendation
> status:
> 
>  Web Payments HTTP API 1.0
>  https://www.w3.org/TR/webpayments-http-api/
> 
> There was also consensus to:
>  1) keep in-scope for our next charter a payment request message structure for out-of-browser payments. 
>  2) add a liaison to the IETF’s HTTP WG for discussion of HTTP-initiated payment requests.
> 
> We have not yet updated the draft charter [2] but expect to do so as soon as time permits.
> 
> PLEASE RESPOND to the proposal by 29 November 2017 (10am ET).
> 
> For the co-Chairs,
> Ian Jacobs
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/11/06-wpwg-minutes#item07
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/charter-2017
> 
> =========
> PROPOSAL
> 
> That the Web Payments Working Group request that the W3C Director approve 
> publication of Web Payments HTTP API 1.0 as a Group Note.
> 
> 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 29 November 2017 (10am ET) for the
> proposal, it will carry.
> 
> 
> ==========================
> Formal Objections
> 
> * If you wish your LACK of support to publish to be conveyed to the
> Director and reviewed, please include the phrase "FORMAL OBJECTION"
> in your response and be sure to include substantive arguments or
> rationale. The W3C Director takes Formal Objections seriously, and
> therefore they typically require significant time and effort to
> address.
> 
> * Silence will be taken to mean there is no Formal Objection.
> 
> * 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.
> 
> For more information, see:
> 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 Tuesday, 28 November 2017 23:47:44 UTC