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

Re: Next f2f and charter issues

From: Berin Szoka <bszoka@techfreedom.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:18:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEjRf9KxKQVuyr9pR7V3L882qtz-s41QOUzDr1yisq3z2UoF+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Since Walter didn't appreciate my (rather apt, I thought) Homer Simpsons
reference earlier on IRC regarding the aversion to defining key terms  ("If
something's hard to do, the it's not worth doing"), how about more serious
reference―Edmund Burke?

"All that wise men ever aim at is to keep things from coming to the worst.
Those who expect perfect reformations, either deceive or are deceived
miserably."


On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> The workshop is the day after the busiest travel weekend in the US. Google
> is basically shut down from Thursday-Sunday, as are many other companies in
> the States. Many people are traveling, and although I'm sure a fair number
> may be back on Monday, I suspect a number of other people are planning on
> extending the four day weekend. Travel logistics aside, there's also the
> "digging out from all the things that pile up over a long weekend".
>
> Aside from timing, I personally was not clear what the workshop was meant
> to discuss. It sounded originally like "What should W3C do next after DNT."
> I recall someone asking in Amsterdam and it wasn't entirely clear what's
> in/out of scope, though I do see "Directions for, and input to, the W3C
> Tracking Protection Working Group's ongoing work on Do Not Track." I'm glad
> that's being considered, but I'm not sure what the result of those
> conversations amounts to if we don't have the majority of the WG present to
> participate in those discussions.
>
> At any rate, my input would be "The current model is not a shining beacon
> of success. Let's see if we can get anything out that people agree adds
> value and is likely to see wide adoption, which may not be everything we
> originally hoped, and then if we can do that, let's re-visit whether this
> was actually the right forum in the first place to be doing a)
> non-technical work and b) design by committee as opposed to
> standardization, before we sign up for more."
>
> -Ian
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Ian, for the question.
>>
>> When we extended the working group in summer, we pre-announced a W3C
>> workshop.  That workshop is happening in two weeks' time, and would be an
>> appropriate venue for further discussion about the future shape of this
>> group.
>>
>> On face-to-face meetings, I anticipate that we're looking at a meeting
>> very early next year to progress things further; most likely on the US East
>> Coast.  As always, we'll announce the meeting 8 weeks ahead of time.
>>  Expect more detail on that soon.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> (@roessler<http://twitter.com/roessler>
>> )
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-11-14, at 19:33 +0100, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> At some point, it would be good to discuss what this working group is
>> expected to look like next year.
>>
>> Specifically, are we planning further f2f meetings? Some people need to
>> budget for this, either financially or in terms of time. Similarly, the
>> current charter expires in January 2013. The group got an extension last
>> time the charter was near expiration, and we did not object formally, but
>> did raise some concerns offline. While we're trying to move towards
>> decisions on some of the open issues, I think it's safe to say there's
>> still a fair amount of skepticism around whether we're getting closer to
>> producing a document that's actually going to be acceptable to enough
>> parties that it receives wide implementation. I'd like to have a discussion
>> on scope and figuring out how we can try to ensure some sort of successful
>> outcome (whatever that may look like, perhaps a narrowed focus on the
>> technical side of things / TPE) and actually discuss this as a W.G., rather
>> than just another extension without working group discussion.
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Berin Szoka | President, TechFreedom | @TechFreedom
bszoka@techfreedom.org | @BerinSzoka
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 21:18:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC