W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group

From: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:39:00 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM7BtUpWhd0470s_nDYnx9CNV4sWrENTuqmNB9wESyxsD6r79g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
I'm sorry Tim, Fabio but onwards and upwards -- really?  You're both too

Silence should not be interpreted as consent.

As a long-time supporter of the CG's work it's  taken a few days for me to
cool off after reading Manu's mail.

I'd just like to say, for the record, how 'beyond disappointed' I am
regarding the inwards approach and behaviour of the current browser vendors
in the WG.

I would implore the other WG members to reflect whether this outcome really
is in the interests of the 'Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>' in an era
of, say, machine-to-machine communication.

Where is there long-term accountability after so many years of
ground-laying work by the CG?

I will raise this with Erik Anderson when I see him tomorrow at the
nyc.blockchainworkshops.org in New York.

If other CG members are in town, and would like to join me in such a
discussion please, send me private mail off-list.

Perhaps the process accountability  was left together with the abandoned
shopping cart ...


On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>

> >From memory, w3c was established to form universal standards for the web
> by engaging the browser companies to accept common standards. The web has
> since evolved and the stakeholders are no longer simply the browser
> companies, who themselves have evolved over the same breadth of time.
> How does the w3c protect from the browser companies and how is it even
> possible to instruct the browser companies not to consider themselves the
> golden geese? Their essentially the privateer gatekeepers to communications
> and human knowledge which is an enormous shift from the days of
> establishing the w3c. Yet I'm still being respectfully superficial in my
> outline of concern.
> Another I'd refer to is one posted by timbl.
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2016Mar/0001.html
> The amount of money involved in solving a problem of this scope is not so
> much. The issue is perhaps the perceived transparency surrounding the
> global socio-political economic scope of implications and indeed their
> influences on life on earth. Neither companies nor machines nor programming
> are counterparts to the true considerations and I sincerely view the views
> of these agents on behalf of their stakeholders extremely short-sighted,
> yet, perhaps it's simply all a bit 'fiat'...
> :(
> Onwards and upwards.
> Timh.
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 at 1:26 PM, Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Sorry for all this....
>>    them before the Web Payments Browser API First Public Working
>>>    Draft was released in April 2016.
>>> Is this really the date?
>>>    It is currently unclear how much the Web Payments Community Group
>>>    or the Web Payments Working Group will be able to sway the browser
>>>    vendors on the Web Payments Browser API specification.
>> Does "browser vendors" include firefox? opera?
>> How do they play in this context? They simply have to adopt whatever is
>> being decided?
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 04:39:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:46 UTC