W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Distinctions between Payments CG, Payments Workshop, and web-payments.org

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:58:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+apKrtzPkrmjqXW95NxcvafU7vYkpP7zvzK1-NaMusYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Austin, Daniel" <daaustin@paypal.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "team-payment-workshop-pc@w3.org" <team-payment-workshop-pc@w3.org>, "public-webpayments@w3.org" <public-webpayments@w3.org>, "Hodges, Jeff" <jeff.hodges@paypal.com>
On 9 January 2014 01:25, Austin, Daniel <daaustin@paypal.com> wrote:

> Hi Team,
>         Internally, my colleagues here at eBay became aware of this site
> and are expressing some concern:
> https://web-payments.org/
> Let me try to list the concerns I've heard so far:
> 1) The Payments CG is publishing sites and documents indicating they are
> developing payments standards at W3C.
> The Website says:
> "The primary output of the Web Payments Community Group are specifications
> that will be implemented by technology companies" [1]
> which is different than
> "Some (but not all) Community Group and Business Group Specifications are
> expected to serve as input to a Working Group." [2]
> (from W3C's rules for CGs).
> A lot of the verbiage on web-payments.org seems to be written as if the
> CG was developing specs and standards for payments, instead of providing a
> common community of fellow travelers. It also fails to clearly make the
> distinction around what CGs do and what WGs do. Phrases such as "technology
> that the Web Payments group creates" [1] could easily lead one to believe
> that the CG is empowered to do more than is actually permitted.
> 2) The site publishes a lot of 'specifications' on this page [3].
> All have been moved over recently from Payswarm's domain, and with one
> exception were written by Manu Sporny. While I appreciate Manu's
> contributions to the team, these documents seem to be an attempt to
> pre-establish the basis for future work by the (hypothetical) Payments WG.
> Most of these documents are Payswarm-specific:
> "The purpose of PaySwarm is to build payment (sic) into the core
> architecture of the Web. This document details the electronic commerce
> portion of this architecture; enabling the decentralized listing of assets
> for sale and the transaction of those assets resulting in a digitally
> verifiable receipt between the buyer and the vendor." [4]
> This is from the abstract from a document called "Web Commerce 1.0" and
> apparently published by the Payments CG. The document labeled "Web Payments
> 1.0" says exactly the same thing in the abstract (!). [5]
> Also, these documents don't follow the rules for specs described in [2],
> i.e. copyright notice, IPR notice, link to CG page, obvious verbiage saying
> this is a draft proposal which may not go anywhere, etc.
> These documents may reflect Payswarm's interests in this area, but they
> don't reflect the interests of the rest of the payments community,
> including eBay/PayPal. Under W3C's rules for CGs, these documents have no
> official status; they may be used as input to some future Working Group (or
> not). At the moment they don't represent a good cross-section of the
> community and don't follow W3C rules.
> Also the site (and presumably the documents on it) are using the CC-BY
> license, where the W3C clearly specifies using the W3C-CCLA [6].
> 3) There's a lot of normative language on the site that doesn't belong
> there.
>  "The Web can help us heal our ailing financial infrastructure and create
> a more equitable future for all of us." [1]
> "...we are making it as easy and fast to send money around the world as it
> is to send an email..."
> And etc. This sort of normative language does not belong in W3C documents.
> Is it W3C's position that our "financial infrastructure" is "ailing"? I
> don't think so, though some members undoubtedly do. I heard similar
> language at TPAC, and it's not at all helpful.
> 4)  The Paris workshop is not directly related to the Payments CG.
> This needs to be emphasized again. Companies with significant IP in this
> space may not be members of the CG due to IPR restrictions. PayPal is a
> good example - it's unlikely that we would ever join the CG for this
> reason. We'll be at the Workshop however, since it is not bound by the IPR
> rules. Let's clearly separate these two things and keep them separate. The
> Payments CG members are certainly welcome at the Workshop, just like
> everybody else, and on exactly the same basis.
> 5) The entire site is far too broadly posed to make sense.
> Security? Identity? These are certainly issues for Web Payments, but the
> CG is not in the business of solving those problems, which are far larger
> than just the Payments space. The CG should simply note its dependencies on
> the work of others in these areas, and possibly identify requirements for
> these other groups to take into consideration in their own work. Expanding
> the scope of the effort to ocean-boiling levels won't help us in the future.
> I'd like to suggest that this site be removed from public view until it
> can be revised in a way that represents both the spirit and the letter of
> the W3C's mission and the CG's charter. I'd be a lot more comfortable if it
> was hosted by W3C as well.

The W3C's mission is to bring the web to its full potential.  Im unsure I
see a conflict here, as payments are an important part of the web.
Specifications in line with W3C recommendations would be a big plus.  No
such specifications exists today, so hopefully this community group can
work together to flesh this out.  Transition to a working group and REC
would, over time, seem a reasonable target.

> Regards,
> D-
> [1] https://web-payments.org/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/
> [3] https://web-payments.org/specs/
> [4] https://web-payments.org/specs/source/web-commerce/
> [5] https://web-payments.org/specs/source/web-payments/
> [6] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 11:58:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:27 UTC