- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:18:00 -0600
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Web Commerce IG <public-webcommerce-ig@w3.org>
> On Nov 17, 2017, at 11:56 AM, 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. There is no particular urgency to this work. Given that it’s also holiday season, I don’t see this delay as creating a significant issue. > 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. How would launching a new CG change that situation materially? > 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. How would that change anything materially, especially if the same people get involved in the new group? > >> * 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”. Yes, sorry. > > 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.). We have launched new CGs for that work. > > 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. I like that proposal better than simply launching a new general purpose CG. One question: should we just reuse the Web Incubator CG? Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 17 November 2017 18:18:03 UTC