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

Re: f2f wrap up & next steps

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:34:35 -0400
To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC0F8AC9.1CDFB%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Thanks Aleecia.

I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but I'd caution the group against creating
the impression that the marketplace should look to implement right now given
that we haven't defined many of the key terms at this point. While it may
make sense for some companies to expiriment and look through documentation
as we create it, the reality is that many small to mid-sized companies may
not have the resources to pour into understanding let along implementing a
document where key terms are still in flux. Not to mention that any public
representation that one is complying with DNT may subject a company to
regulatory scrutiny.

Also, I wanted to circle back regarding the group's charter. Thomas
mentioned something about rechartering during the meeting, but I hadn't
heard anything further. I'm wondering if this is an appropriate opportunity
to re-evaluate what we're really trying to accomplish in this group  as
there seemed to be a myriad of opinions raised to that effect in Bellevue.
And to be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating specific changes to the
charter. In any event, if the W3C is working under the assumption that
rechartering should automatically take place without at least some group
discussion, I would see that as problematic. I'm sure that's not the case.
So, I'm simply asking if this will be on the July 11 agenda? I believe the
charter expires in July, correct?


Cheers,

Alan Chapell
Chapell & Associates





On 6/25/12 11:17 PM, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com> wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> 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 proposals
> that were far apart, with neither able to reach consensus in the form it was
> 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 text
> 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 of
> 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 with 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 is 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 would choose, but I can
> live with it in order to move forward." Well done. That's 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 proposal 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 of July 2. As a group, we
> will then review all text that has not had consensus (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 Public 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. To 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 implementations.
> - Rigo will begin to organize the first draft of the Global Considerations
> 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 is
> challenging with different levels of understanding of the work to date. Next
> 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. I 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 spent two months
> with radically different proposals and movement by inches when we needed
> yards. What I learned last week is to have more faith in the ability 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 see 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 upcoming call. :-)
> 
> Aleecia
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 15:35:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:31 UTC