W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking-announce@w3.org > September 2013

Choices and more details for the poll...

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:31:40 +0200
Message-ID: <5225824C.8060902@schunter.org>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Dear Tracking Protection Working Group,

in this third mail, we have detailed the choices and setup of the poll.

Regards,
  Matthias Schunter
  & W3C Team

=====================================
Initiative 2: Poll - Collect your input on how best to continue
=====================================

[Timing: Poll starts September 10; closes October 09]

While we see a viable path towards success, it is very important to us 
that we understand the needs of the group. The poll gives each of you 
the opportunity to voice your preference and concerns. This poll is open 
to all Participants (member representatives and invited experts) in the 
Working Group (as of August 31, 2013).

To assess the support for the different options we have, we decided to 
poll the group to allow W3C to understand what options have sufficient 
momentum to proceed, and what suggestions and concerns are raised. How 
we proceed is up to Working Group; the final decision regarding whether 
to continue the Working Group is with Tim Berners-Lee, the W3C Director.

We would like to poll the group to assess the support for the proposed 
plan and alternative options how to proceed. The options on which we 
would like to assess support and gather feedback are:

1.  "Go, with the proposed Plan: to resolve the remaining open issues
     as outlined in the proposed "Plan to Get to Last Call",
     using calls for objections as necessary. That is, implement
     the plan that we jointly finalise to bring both Compliance
     and TPE to Last Call and beyond.

2.  "Go, with the proposed Plan and initiate explicit V2.0 planning":
     i.e., also queue concerns and open challenges for a DNT 2.0
     release in order to allow us to focus on the essentials
     and to postpone features that are, e.g., not ready for
     immediate implementation.

3.  "Finalise TPE first and then finalise compliance effort":
     While each specification could go to Last Call at its own pace,
     Candidate Recommendations for both documents would be published
     jointly, and the two would proceed further together.

4.  "TPE only": Focus on TPE while halting our efforts on the
     Compliance specification. Work on a Compliance specification
     may be resumed after the TPE specification has reached
     Candidate Recommendation.

5.  "No confidence": The responder feels that continuing to
     work in the group is not  in their interests and
     would prefer to stop work.

The clear recommendation from the Chair/Staff is to make progress with 
Options 1 or 2.  We note that Option 4, which is not in alignment with 
the Charter, may require re-Chartering the Working Group.

Additional inputs we would expect from the group:
  * Why do certain options do a disservice to the goals of the Working 
Group?
  * What improvement/clarifications are needed?
  * Are there alternative ways forward that you would prefer?
  * Any other thoughts?
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 06:42:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 September 2013 06:42:55 UTC