Re: Support Web Commerce CG

I agree with that solution Manu.

** katie **

Katie Haritos-Shea

Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA)

703-371-5545

ryladog@gmail.com

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 11/17/2017 10:58 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> > Given that this specific proposal is about HTTP-baesd payments, I
> > suggest instead that we enlarge the scope of the Web Payments CG for
> >  several reasons:
> >
> > * There is a higher cost to creating a new CG an having everybody
> > join it than simply enlarging the scope of an existing CG.
>
> There is a non-trivial cost when changing the charter for the Web
> Payments CG. Per that CG's process, we'd have to propose a new charter
> expansion, debate it for at least two weeks, and then hold a vote (at
> least another week). So we're a month off from rechartering that group.
>
> I should also note that not a single one of the specs that the Web
> Payment CG's incubated for multiple years were adopted by the Web
> Payments WG, so there is little (from a specification perspective) in
> common between the groups other than the name.
>
> Incubation in the Web Payments CG did not lead to success the last time
> we did it, rather it was a good story of how not to do things at W3C.
> Back story here for those that were not a part of that process:
>
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
>
> That community will remember that when having work placed back into the
> CG, and it's not particularly a conversation/wound I'd like to reopen.
>
> Rather, I suggest we shut down the Web Payments CG and move the people
> that want to try again over to the Web Commerce CG.
>
> > * Having the IG mirror the scope of the Web Payments WG (where this
> > migrated from) seems appropriate.
>
> I think you meant "CG" instead of "IG".
>
> If we do that, it doesn't address the long-term issue of where we put
> things that don't neatly fit into the Web Payments CG (Digital Offers,
> Invoices, Digital Receipts, etc.).
>
> Since our scope has expanded to Web Commerce, and given that the IG
> can't work on specs, I suggest we do something that doesn't result in
> the proliferation of new spec-specific CGs as the years roll on.
>
> So, the concrete set of suggestions are:
>
> 1. Launch the Web Commerce CG.
> 2. Shut down the Web Payments CG, instructing anyone that wants to move
>    over to Web Commerce CG to do so.
> 3. Shut down the Digital Offers CG, merging it into the Web Commerce CG.
> 4. Move the Web Payments HTTP API spec to the Web Commerce CG.
> 5. Incubate any further spec identified by the Web Commerce IG in the
>    Web Commerce CG unless there is a better home for it. This simplifies
>    the IPR process for WCIG members that don't want to do IPR for WCCG,
>    and simplifies everyone else's lift by not having to join multiple
>    new CGs as the Web Commerce IG identifies work items.
>
> -- 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/
>
>