Re: Further collaboration with W3C Management on

On 10 January 2014 15:49, Manu Sporny <> wrote:

> Hi all,
> In an attempt to be proactive in dealing with PayPal/eBay's concerns
> about the 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 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.
> 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 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.


Sounds great.  Do community groups normally have a 'charter', or is that
more for working groups and (previously) incubator groups?  Or is the
charter intended to be input for a future working group?

> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop

Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 15:30:03 UTC