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

Support I and II.

On 2021-06-02 7:46 p.m., Ian Jacobs 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
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 10 June 2021 14:24:09 UTC