RE: Resuming work on the TCS

Alan -

There is little more information to share. As I stated, we looked at the rationale for delay, counterpoised it with the rationale to continue, and came down on the side of the need to press forward.  I am not sure exactly to what your phrase "This approach has become all too common recently" refers. If you mean "forward progress and closure of items that have been discussed at length", then yes, I plead guilty. While I acknowledge that we did not side with your stated position, I hardly feel that not agreeing with you serves as any indication that we did not consider your position.  Please note the statement that we "...understand that this is a challenge for some stakeholders" which would indicate that we did consider the problems and issues you raised. However, in the face of needing to satisfy a larger set of stakeholders and the community at large by maintaining a schedule (which is a paramount value), we opted to satisfy the requirements of the larger set of constituents.

With respect to a CfO, CfOs are supposed to be for technical objections to a spec. Not applicable in this case.

I trust that this satisfies your request for further clarification; as I said, the chairs felt that maintaining the schedule (which the group as a whole agreed to in October of 2013) was of paramount importance. The issue that you raised now should have been part of the consideration given when the October decision was taken and moved by the group.

For the Chairs -

Carl



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

From: Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:26 AM
To: Carl Cargill; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
Cc: team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
Subject: Re: Resuming work on the TCS

Thanks Carl -

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

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.

Thanks.

Alan

From: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com<mailto:cargill@adobe.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:54 PM
To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Cc: "team-tracking-chairs@w3.org<mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org<mailto:team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>>
Subject: Resuming work on the TCS
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:Cargill@adobe.com>
Office: +1 541 488 0040
Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
@AdobeStandards
http://blogs.adobe.com/standards