agenda+ Important discussion of W3C Member review of proposed charter

Dear IG,

*** 21 SEPTEMBER IS AN IMPORTANT CALL FOR MAKING PROGRESS ON THE WORKING GROUP CHARTER ***

The W3C Member review of the proposed Web Payments Working Group charter ended this week. Overall, the Membership
overwhelmingly supported the work. However, a number of organizations raised some very good points and suggested
changes to the charter.

At Monday’s call (10am ET) I would like to discuss some of the feedback and some proposals to address those comments.
(Some of the proposals are based on comments from our call yesterday [1].)

Thus, it’s an important meeting for making progress on the Working Group Charter.

I have been incorporating feedback into the editor’s draft of the charter:
 http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/charters/payments-wg-charter.html

Here is a diff from the one that the Membership reviewed:
 http://bit.ly/1QkqVPe

See below for additional proposals based on discussion yesterday.

David Baron (Mozilla) will join Monday’s call to discuss Mozilla’s feedback on the charter [2].
Vincent Kuntz indicated he may send some additional comments on the charter.

I will also few words about next steps (handling feedback, going back to the management team with a proposal,
impact on TPAC meeting, etc.).

I expect this topic will consume most of Monday’s call. Have a good weekend,

Ian

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0093.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Sep/0096.html

=================================
Proposals discussed at the 17 September call [1]
Note: these proposals are not in the Editor’s Draft and have not been socialized with reviewers.

(1) Several W3C Members indicated a preference that the Working Group only take up specifications that have previously
      been “incubated” in the developer community.

  PROPOSED ADDITION to section 3 (deliverables).

     “The Working Group should use base its deliverables on specifications that have already been socialized with
      Web developers, and that can be contributed with adequate patent policy coverage (e.g., from W3C Community
      Groups or via W3C Member Submissions).”


 (2)  W3C Members also asked whether polyfill implementations would be sufficient to satisfy the group’s and W3C’s
  implementation needs. I’ve take the liberty of writing a proposal that endeavors to address several issues at once:

  ------------
  Interoperability Success Criteria (currently part of 3.2)

  <old>
  The group will seek interoperability between two user agents and two services that enable payers to use digital payment instruments.
  </old>

  <new>
  The Working Group will fulfill the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#implementation-experience”>implementation
  experience required by the W3C Process</a> as follows:

  * The Working Group will develop test suites for Recommendation-track specifications.
  * The group will seek independent interoperable implementations by two user agents and two services that enable payers to use digital payment instruments.
  * Both implementations must be developed by people who are not authors of the specifications.
  * One of the user agent implementations must be native (that is, part of the distributed user agent code).
  * For any non-native implementation, we will ask user agent developers to attest to the suitability and traction of the proposal.
  * For any native implementation, the Working Group will work with the WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group (or its successor)  to help
    communicate accessibility issues to the user agent developers.
  </new>

  (Then, since I moved the test suite assertion from 3.4 to this section, I would delete section 3.4).
  ——————

  NOTES:
     * The proposal above does NOT suggest we don’t want to see polyfill solutions. Indeed, they will be a useful way to
       test ideas, and it was pointed out that they may be very important for people to use the new APIs in older browsers.
     * However, there were some concerns that this proposal puts a small number of organizations (browser vendors) in the
       critical path for advancement of these APIs. We should discuss this topic on Monday.

(3) One reviewer suggested we drop the Card Payments specification. Adrian has taken an action to propose new language:
     https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/actions/153

(4) One reviewer suggested we remove a sentence on “payment completion” from the flow section because the group will not actually
    address payment completion. Adrian pointed out that we need a mention of when payment completion happens (even if the group will
    not be working on it). We asked Adrian to write to the IG with (a) an explanation of why the deleted sentence is important,
    (b) a proposal for re-inserting in a way that does not suggest the scope of this WG includes payment execution, and
    (c) why he thinks the emerging proposals may be different from the originally proposed flow and what to do about it.
    Adrian took an action to proposal language to address this:
    https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/track/actions/154

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447