Re: Call for Consensus to Publish Payment Request API as a CR then PR - reply requested before 18 June 2021

Support I and II.

Krystian
Payments Manager


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:49 PM Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear Web Payments Working Group Participants,
>
> This is a Call for Consensus to publish the following specification as a
> revised Candidate Recommendation snapshot:
>
>   Payment Request API
>   https://w3c.github.io/payment-request/
>   (GitHub hash ace5c08)
>
> This is also a Call for Consensus to publish the specification as a
> Proposed Recommendation (after the Candidate Recommendation period),
> provided there are no substantive changes to the specification after the
> Candidate Recommendation period.
>
> You may answer each part of this Call for Consensus independently.  Your
> response might look like this if you support both parts of the proposal:
>
>  "Support I and II."
>
> We would like to thank the editors for preparing this document.
>
> PLEASE RESPOND to the proposal by 18 June 2021 (17h00 UTC).
>
> For the co-Chairs,
> Ian Jacobs
>
> ===========================================
> BACKGROUND
>
> On 18 January of this year, we called for consensus to publish Payment
> Request API as a Proposed Recommendation:
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2021Jan/0005
>
> On 27 January the Chairs recorded a decision to request that the Director
> advance the specification:
>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2021Jan/0019
>
> However, rather than proceed at that time, two discussions ensued:
>
>   * Although the Director had previously approved the advancement of the
> specification with respect to issue 842 [1] regarding address information,
> we decided to revisit the question.
>
>   * The Internationalization Working Group conducted a new review of the
> specification.
>
> As a result of those two conversations, the editors proposed [2] and
> discussed [3] removing support for addresses and contact information from
> the API. We removed the features in confidence based on reports from the
> Chrome team that they were not widely used. Furthermore, payment method
> data may be used with other features of the API to fulfill relevant use
> cases.
>
> We will update the Payment Request API test suite based on these changes
> and plan to regenerate the implementation report [4] prior to any formal
> request to the Director to advance the specification to Proposed
> Recommendation.
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/issues/842
> [2]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2021Apr/0006.html
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/29-wpwg-minutes.html#t01
> [4] https://w3c.github.io/test-results/payment-request/all.html
>
> ===========================================
> CHANGES TO PAYMENT REQUEST API
> (Since the 18 January Call for Consensus)
>
> * Improvements based on privacy reviews
>
>   - Removed API support for shipping address, billing address, and contact
> information.
>
>   - Clarified specification role in facilitating communication between
> top-level contexts.
>
> * Improvements based on Internationalization review:
>
>   - Recommended that payment UI matches document language
>   - Clarified use of currency codes and currency symbols
>   - Added diverse currency examples
>
> * A small number of other editorial changes.
>
> For the full commit history, see:
> https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/commits/gh-pages
>
> ===========================================
> PROPOSAL
>
> (I) That the Web Payments Working Group request that the W3C Director
> approve publication of Payment Request API as a revised Candidate
> Recommendation snapshot.
>
> 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.
>
> (II) Provided there are no substantive changes to the specification
> following Candidate Recommendation, that the Web Payments Working Group
> request that the W3C Director approve publication of Payment Request API as
> a Proposed Recommendation.
>
> 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 18 June 2021 (17h00 UTC) for the proposal,
> it will carry.
>
> ===========================================
> FORMAL OBJECTIONS
>
> * Two non-Working Group participants raised Formal Objections in response
> to the 18 January 2021 Call for Consensus:
>
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2021Jan/0008.html
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2021Jan/0020.html
>
>   The people that raised the Formal Objections do not need to re-register
> them. We will carry forward those objections in any request to the Director
> to advance the specification to Proposed Recommendation.
>
> * 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.
>
> * We request that any Formal Objections be limited to changes made to
> Payment Request API since the draft referenced from the 18 January 2021
> Call for Consensus.
>
> * Silence will be taken to mean there is no Formal Objection.
>
> * If there are new 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/2020/Process-20200915/#Consensus
>
> ===========================================
> NEXT STEPS
> Transition Request Following a Working Group Decision to Publish
>
> * In the case where this Call for Consensus results in a decision to
> publish, the Chairs plan to request approval from the W3C Director to
> publish a Candidate Recommendation (including review of any Formal
> Objections).
>
> * In the case where this Call for Consensus results in a decision to
> publish a subsequent Proposed Recommendation, the Chairs plan to request
> approval from the W3C Director to do so (including review of any Formal
> Objections).
>
> * See the estimated timeline to Recommendation:
>   https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/wiki/REC_2020_Plan
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel: +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>
>
>