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

Re: Path forward...

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:02:53 -0700
To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
Cc: DNT LIST all <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DD103B14CA5F4F7FA767F453C2E6323B@gmail.com>
Matthias,

I don't follow.  My understanding is that extending the July deadline requires an "affirmative decision" of the group.  Both you and Peter have consistently articulated this position.

From the June 19 minutes:
> It would take an affirmative decision by the group to extend beyond July 31.

From the July 10 minutes:
> What I've said before is that we need an affirmative decision by the group about whether to continue after July

From the July 15 decision on base text:
> Before the end of July, the group will discuss whether and how to proceed in light of the current Last Call deadline scheduled for the end of July.

From the July 16 explanatory memorandum:
> The work of the group has been shaped by the goal of achieving Last Call by the end of July, or, failing that, to bring enough clarity to the process that the group can assess by the end of July whether and how to proceed.

> Before the end of July, the group will discuss whether and how to proceed in light of the current Last Call deadline scheduled for the end of July.

Other members of the group appear to share this understanding.  Rob van Eijk and Chris Mejia, for example, sent notes recently.  Lauren Gelman also wrote twice this month seeking clarification on the "affirmative decision" process.  (Group leadership and staff declined to respond.)

Now, however:
> We believe that, together, the decision on ISSUE-215, the issues list, and the list of change proposals give us a clear (and well-defined) work program toward Last Call, and a decision on the direction going forward.

Is the notion that our efforts on the June Draft and DAA Proposal implicitly constitute an "affirmative decision" to proceed?

Thanks,
Jonathan
  


On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel) wrote:

>  
>  
> To the Group:
>  
>           When we first discussed the current Editor’s Draft (formerly known as "June Draft"), Jonathan was rightly concerned about the implications of that choice for our schedule:  In Sunnyvale, we had agreed to work against a July 31 (x-apple-data-detectors://0) deadline.
>  
>           It is now time to take stock of the hard work that the group has done since:  We have 23 specific change proposals against the Editor’s Draft, and a set of issues against the “Compliance June” product:
>           http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
>           http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG
>  
>           Further, we have, using the call for objections process, recorded a Working Group decision (closing ISSUE-215) to continue with the Editor’s draft as a baseline text, as opposed to the change proposal offered by the DAA and other advertising groups (as amended):
>           http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/2013-july-decision/
>           http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/2013-july-explanatory-memo/
>  
>           We believe that, together, the decision on ISSUE-215, the issues list, and the list of change proposals give us a clear (and well-defined) work program toward Last Call, and a decision on the direction going forward.   As a group, we will review the individual change proposals, look for counterproposals and perfecting amendments, and either agree on a single approach, or use the call for objections process to move forward.
>  
>           In terms of near-term plans, a personal note from Peter: With the packers at my house now, and my upcoming marriage, I will not participate in any calls the rest of July and August. Matthias has graciously agreed to chair the call on 24 July (x-apple-data-detectors://5) on both his and my behalf.  W3C staff and Matthias will work hard on detailed project planning based on the issues list and change proposals over the first half of August.  That planning can form the basis for resuming issue-by-issue work on the compliance specification after the summer break.
>  
>           We look forward to your input on this approach and further discussion on the call this Wednesday.
>  
>           Matthias Schunter
>           Peter Swire
>           Co-chairs, W3C TPWG
>  
>  
>  
> --  
> Sent from a phone...
>  
>  
>  
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 19:03:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 23 July 2013 19:03:19 UTC