- From: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:39:00 +0800
- To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
- Cc: Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com>, Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAM7BtUpWhd0470s_nDYnx9CNV4sWrENTuqmNB9wESyxsD6r79g@mail.gmail.com>
I'm sorry Tim, Fabio but onwards and upwards -- really? You're both too polite. 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 ... p. On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: > >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