W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Resuming work on the TCS

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:26:26 -0500
To: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: "team-tracking-chairs@w3.org" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CF2B7675.4A3E7%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Thanks Carl - 

Can you share more information regarding the chairs' decision to move

Justin indicated on last week's call that he was willing to honor the will
of the group. Your rationale below clearly takes into consideration the
opinions of the group members who want to move forward immediately, but does
not demonstrate that any consideration was given to the feedback from group
members who want to incorporate learnings prior to moving forward. This
approach has become all too common recently. This is particularly troubling
given that such feedback was provided by those who will be tasked with
implementing this standard.

Moreover, why wasn't this issue decided by the will of the group with a CFO?

I recognize that W3C process allows for issues to be re-opened with new
information.  While I'm sure it has happened at some point, personally, I
can't recall a recent instance where an issue has been reopened in this
working group. Given that the opinions of the chairs and w3c staff are
abundantly clear in this area, it would seem that the bar for re-opening an
issue here is that much higher.

If you could shed some further light on your rationale, I'd appreciate it.



From:  Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>
Date:  Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:54 PM
To:  W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc:  "team-tracking-chairs@w3.org" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>
Subject:  Resuming work on the TCS
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:54:49 +0000

> All 
> There was substantial discussion at the last meeting regarding the timing of
> the restart of the work on the TCS,  following the completion of the work on
> the TPE.
> The Chairs considered the points made for delay carefully, and laid them out
> against the rationale for immediately continuing. The key issues for
> continuing with the current schedule fell into several categories.
> €                    Process and procedural issues - Based on the WG input we
> made the decision in October to prioritize TPE but to advance the two document
> in parallel again after Last Call. If the TCS is delayed by several months,
> the further advancement of TPE to Candidate Recommendation will be slowed by
> the same amount.
> €                    User/stakeholder pressure for a W3C compliance
> specification.  There have been calls for the compliance spec from users and
> stakeholders. This works against the slippage of the schedule.
> €                    Resource issues. Generally, based on experience in
> standardization, the resources necessary for conformance specification writing
> are usually different than those necessary to write an implementation of the
> TPE.
> After consideration of the multiple points, it was decided that the need to
> maintain the TPWG approved and requested schedule for the TPE and TCS was
> significant enough to begin work on the TCS sooner rather than later. As we
> have done since October, TCS will deal with issues with the same process used
> for completion of the TPE.
> While we understand that this is a challenge for on some stakeholders, we
> believe that the larger community will be better served by moving ahead  as
> scheduled  with the TCS.
> For the Chairs,
> Carl Cargill
> Carl Cargill
> Principal Scientist, Standards
> Adobe Systems
> Cargill@adobe.com
> Office: +1 541 488 0040
> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
> @AdobeStandards
> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 14:27:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:21 UTC