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

Re: WPWG Vendor Neutrality (was Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group)

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:59:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSojws_ejGOHLjZJbTkUkrJ377MSfbu+JnjsE5C_7f2HtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: "That does not mean that we should give up now" ''Let's go through a
few more options,

+1

But...

RE: 'before suggesting that this work needs to be done elsewhere."

To situate my earlier comments, in many/most negotiations it's valuable to
be psychologically and pragmatically prepared to walk. In the core
reference on conflict resolution "Getting to Yes" [1], it's called your
BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_to_Yes
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement

It's often useful to be up front and explicit about your BATNA so that the
other party can fully reflect on the consequences.

Joseph Potvin


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 04/04/2016 06:49 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > My first question, is what wasnt Manu the chair of the group?  He is
> > eminently qualified.  I would have had much more confidence in
> > getting a world class spec to REC with him at the helm.
>
> Thank you for the vote of confidence, Melvin. Here's why I'm not a Chair
> nor should be one:
>
> Chairs are supposed to be completely neutral. If I were a chair, I (nor
> my company) could push the Web Payments Community Group views via
> proposed specs and change requests without coming across as partisan.
> That is, it would be very hard for me to represent the consensus
> position of this CG or to have any opinions of my company or my own.
>
> We went into the Web Payments Working Group with several specs based on
> what we thought the consensus position of the Web Payments Community
> Group was. We did our best to merge those specs with the browser vendors
> proposals and failed. That does not mean that we should give up now and
> look elsewhere. Let's go through a few more options, which we have,
> before suggesting that this work needs to be done elsewhere.
>
> > Recent conversations indicate to me that, familiarity with W3C
> > technologies such Linked Data, are not as strong I would like to see
> >  from a individuals guiding specifications.  This I would have
> > thought would be a pre requisite, especially for guiding
> > specification level decisions.
>
> Yes, but we can't force people to do their homework. :(
>
> > Is there some strange politics going on here?  The W3C is supposed
> > to be vendor neutral.  That's like the "prime directive".
>
> W3C is vendor neutral when the vendors have roughly equivalent captured
> market size. So, it's vendor neutral between the largest browser
> vendors. It is not vendor neutral between a large browser vendor and a
> community group.
>
> We should be under no presumption that we're on a level playing field.
> We are not. The thing that helps at W3C is that almost everything is
> done in public. So, if you don't like what you see, you have a voice:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues
>
> Log some issues, or pick an issue to comment on and track... remember
> that in order to be effective, you have to keep it focused,
> constructive, and suggest specific changes to specification text.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 21:00:05 UTC

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