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

Re: Further collaboration with W3C Management on web-payments.org

From: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:54:18 +0100
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Daniel Austin <daaustin@paypal.com>
Message-ID: <20140110155418.7b541e04@quill>
Sounds good.

Thank you so much, Manu, for handling this matter in such an
exemplary manner!


Am Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:49:40 -0500
schrieb Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>:

> Hi all,
> In an attempt to be proactive in dealing with PayPal/eBay's concerns
> about the web-payments.org website and this community's positioning in
> the larger ecosystem, I had a discussion with Ian Jacobs, W3C's Head
> of Marketing and Communication. The discussion was good and very
> collaborative. We came up with the following things that the group
> should consider doing:
> 1. Gather consensus around which specs we're definitely working on in
>    the Web Payments community group.
> 2. Make a few more modifications to the web-payments.org website
>    attempting to clearly specify that the CG is not endorsed by the
>    W3C, but it is also designed to create material that may be fed
>    into W3C or other standardization bodies like the IETF.
> 3. Make a clear statement that although this work is not yet on
>    the W3C recommendation track, as it matures, the community will
>    evaluate whether or not they want to petition W3C to elevate it to
>    the standards track.
> 4. Formalize a charter as not having one may be preventing
>    organizations like PayPal from participating in the CG (due to
>    unknown scoping concerns).
> We're going to have to integrate this input along with all the other
> good input we've gotten since PayPal/eBay's concerns were raised with
> this group and apply it to the website and the operation of this
> group.
> We also talked about other sections of PayPal/eBay's concerns email
> and got confirmation on them not being issues:
> 1. We are not violating any W3C Community Group rules.
> 2. We are not violating the CLA.
> 3. We are not violating CLA publishing requirements wrt.
>    web-payments.org.
> 4. We do have the proper language in the specs regarding the
>    application of the CLA and IPR notices. Ian did say that W3C is
>    considering changing the text from 'specification' to 'report'
>    because some of the W3C Members like that word better, but that's
>    a decision for W3C Management. The text in all of our specs comes
>    from the ReSpec specification editing tool boilerplate. We use that
>    boilerplate to keep ourselves inline with W3C's policies regarding
>    changes to the W3C CLA.
> Here are the actions that the group is going to have to consider
> taking over the next several weeks:
> 1. Formalize and vote on a charter, which will include figuring out
>    some of our operating rules (like how formal decisions are made).
> 2. Vote on which specs this group sees as being in their purview.
> 3. Modify the web-payments.org website to spin some of the statements
>    in a more positive way (such as the 'ailing financial system'
>    statements).
> I'll send out a separate email for each one of these action items
> above, as there are details that we're going to have to work through
> as a community.
> Thanks again to Ian from W3C for taking the time to talk through all
> of these items in detail. We're continuing to try and find some
> consensus around these issues so that we may go back to doing
> technical work.
> -- manu
Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 14:55:01 UTC

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