W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

Re: f2f wrap up & next steps

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:41:46 -0600
To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC0F79EF.44BC%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Quick question.

I was reviewing the timeline at:

And noticed that Call for Implementations was missing (see this link:

Are we skipping this and going straight for CR (Call for Review of a
Proposed Spec)? 

Peter J. Cranstone

-----Original Message-----
From: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Date: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:17 PM
To: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: f2f wrap up & next steps
Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:39:01 +0000

>Thank you to the 60+ people who attended the Seattle meeting, many of whom
>flew great distances to make it. We walked in with two Compliance
>that were far apart, with neither able to reach consensus in the form it
>in. As a group we decided we needed to move the proposals closer to the
>center, and we did just that. We walked out with an overall direction that
>everyone can live with for permitted business uses, including proposed
>for two of the five we discussed, and great new ideas. We can now see the
>outline what DNT will look like and where we need to go. We took up some
>the most contentious remaining issues, on purpose, and we made solid
>progress on the hardest stuff.
>I am particularly pleased with proposals that allow business uses to
>continue while improving privacy, by doing things a little differently
>a low burden for implementation. That's a home run. That's exactly what we
>are looking for, the point where everyone can live with the outcome. That
>the hope and promise for DNT, and what we are all working so hard to
>realize. We still have a lot to do. There are many details to fit into
>place, some of them quite important to some stakeholders. We will work
>through them. I was encouraged hearing people say, "This is not what I
>choose, but I can live with it in order to move forward." Well done.
>how consensus happens.
>On TPE, editors will incorporate decisions that came out of the final day,
>and then we will review the final text as a group to ensure all is as
>agreed. Similarly on Compliance, the editors will write a strawman
>that incorporates text from four different documents (existing draft,
>proposed combination draft, proposal from Shane et al, proposal from
>Jonathan et al.) That strawman is already well in progress thanks to our
>talented editors. My hope is for a Compliance strawman draft by the week
>July 2. As a group, we will then review all text that has not had
>(that is, no need to re-review text that was already agreed upon in prior
>drafts, nor the text we agreed upon while Nick live-edited during the
>Seattle meeting.) We need to publish new drafts soon, since it has been
>several months since our last publications. We will evaluate the state of
>the drafts to see if we are ready to ask for input as a First Last Call
>document with major issues resolved, or if we are looking at a Third
>Working Draft. 
>Either way, I believe we will be far enough along for many potential early
>adopters to begin their work on implementations without risk of redoing
>major work, provided we are very clear about where work remains in flux.
>do that well, as Ian points out, we will need at least one user agent
>developing a compliant implementation so we can test interoperability. We
>have already worked through about half of the issues on user agent
>compliance with one conference call and an hour in Seattle. We'll work
>through the rest in the fairly near term. After we review the strawman
>draft, if you are planning on doing an implementation soon and there are
>specific unresolved Compliance issues that would get in your way, I'm open
>to prioritizing them earlier. Just let me know so I can make informed
>scheduling trade offs.
>Our next face-to-face meeting will be in Europe, likely in mid- to late
>September. If you have a location that can handle about 70 people in that
>time frame for three days, please let us know the details. We have a
>generous standing offer to go back to Brussels, though we try to hold
>meetings in varied locations to distribute the travel burden. Once we know
>our options we will use an online Doodle poll to understand which
>possibilities allow the greatest number of TPWG members to attend, just as
>we have done for past meetings.
>Coming soon...
>	- a new mailing list to receive external comments. By the time we get out
>of Last Call, we'll have a few of those, plus comments from
>	- Rigo will begin to organize the first draft of the Global
>document, which will be non-normative.
>To me, it felt like Seattle was the bumpiest f2f I've co-chaired. I am
>thrilled to have new voices and a greater breadth of stakeholders, but it
>challenging with different levels of understanding of the work to date.
>time, perhaps we need a mandatory in person pre-meeting for anyone who has
>not attended a prior f2f. It's also hard to make progress with the sheer
>number of people. I didn't scale with the group size as well as I'd like.
>have some ideas and will keep thinking about that. And I made it harder on
>all of us than it had to be because I started to get frustrated. We'd
>two months with radically different proposals and movement by inches when
>needed yards. What I learned last week is to have more faith in the
>of the full group to get hard things done, and to trust the process. We're
>making progress, moving toward the middle, and as Ed points out, we can
>where the final compromise needs to be. Let's make it happen.
>Thank you again to Microsoft for the space, and for Facebook, Google, and
>Yahoo! for hosting financially and feeding us. A special warm thank you to
>JC for taking great care of us in his beautiful city of Seattle. If you
>scribed last week - thank you! If you didn't - be ready to do so an
>call. :-)
>	Aleecia
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 20:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:51 UTC