Re: Plan moving forward

Hi Carl,

Can you please walk me through how we got from working on the TPE + a
definition of tracking to where we are today?

By porting over most of the definitions from the compliance document, it
would seem that the chairs are moving the group significantly closer to
option 1 or option 2 from the poll. Given that options 1 & 2 were rejected
by the working group, I'm curious as to why this is the approach the chairs
are choosing?

Alan


From:  Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>
Date:  Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:35 PM
To:  "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)"
<public-tracking@w3.org>, "public-tracking-announce@w3.org"
<public-tracking-announce@w3.org>
Subject:  Plan moving forward
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:35:58 +0000

>  
> All -
>  
> The basis of the discussion of Item 3 on the agenda for 30 October.
>  
> =====
>  
> The Chairs and W3C have listened to your feedback, and based on the poll
> results and the information we received during the October 16 call, we are
> revising the Plan to finalize the TWPG deliverables as follows:
>  
> Based on the feedback received, the chairs propose to prioritize getting the
> TPE out to last call for implementation and testing.  We will work through and
> close out all remaining TPE issues in the coming weeks' calls.  We will also
> port over from the Compliance specification many of the definitions, including
> parties, first parties, third parties, network transaction,
> collect/retain/use/share, user, user agent, and service provider.  The TPE
> will also include a definition of tracking --- of what the signal is intended
> to indicate --- unless the group decides that such a definition is not
> necessary.  (The definitions of de-identified and graduated response pertain
> exclusively to compliance issues, and probably do not need to be ported over,
> however the working group members will ultimately decide which definitions are
> necessary for TPE to progress.)  If there are other Compliance issues that the
> group believes we need to close out because of dependencies or other reasons,
> we may prioritize those as well.  By my calculation, there are approximately
> 10 open or raised issues against a slightly expanded TPE, and 7 issues in
> pending review.  It is my hope that we can cycle through these issues in 14
> calls (or less), which would have us wrapping up in February.
>  
> Once we have finalized the TPE specification. we will resume working on a
> compliance specification.  We will then proceed to close out the remaining
> issues against that document.  W3C believes that web users need a unified
> compliance standard, so that there can be one consistent expectation for how
> DNT signals will be treated.  However, one of the open issues that we will
> consider for TPE is whether to include a field that would allow a server to
> indicate an alternative compliance regime.  We will resolve that issue based
> on the consensus of the working group.
>  
> We will be seeking consensus and closing out issues under the timing and
> structure previously described by Matthias.  On the call Wednesday, if we are
> unable to come to agreement on Issues 5 and 10, we will proceed to a Call for
> Objections on those two issues, and working group members will have two weeks
> to register their objections to the options.  The Chairs will then choose
> among the options based on which options have the least strong objections.
>  
> We will take some time during the call to answer any questions you have, or
> feel free to send questions to the mailing list.  After Wednesday's call, we
> will shift to the new plan and in parallel schedule a meeting to get advice
> and ensure alignment with the W3C Director.
>  
> Justin, Carl, and Matthias
>  
>