Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group

On Apr 4, 2016 6:41 AM, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 don't think the problem is only related to browser vendors but to a
somewhat overly broad scope for an industry sector which is completely
unused to open standardization.

It is also a very difficult market.  If you take for example Apple Pay it
effectively tries to replace a system that already works; i.e. payment
cards which is a poor value proposition.  In some markets other (local)
schemes have been much more successful by offering P2P payments which cards
cannot do.

Now imagine discussing such topics in a public mailing list.  That obviosly
doesn't work!  This is W3C's core problem which there is no solution to
which is why I suggest that W3C "reboots" this WG and rather search for
primitives that other groups can use to create better payment systems.

That the market generally has taken the App route also motivates an
upgraded strategy.

Anders

>
> 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' 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?
>
>