RE: Options for the future of the TPWG - Discussion needed

Hi Matthias,

 
I am in favor of publishing the current draft as REC.

 
Rechartering and reaching out to implementers and getting new members onboard to work on features like purpose and site-specific opt-out may be easier with a tangible result.

 
Rob

 
 
 
--------------------------------
PGP fingerprint: 704F 4955 F7E3 044E 4084 19E2 2844 CDDC A655 DB3C [public_key]

PGP verification is published in DNS which is secured by DNSSEC [rob._pka.blaeu.com].

 
 
 
-----Original message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
Sent: Saturday, November 4 2017, 2:25 pm
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Options for the future of the TPWG - Discussion needed
 
Dear TPWG,


just as a context, here are my current believes on the politics around
our WG.

Some points to consider:
- We got an extension of our charter until end of 2017
- W3C may not be willing to extend again unless there is strong evidence

of renewed interest (e.g. new members joining)
- We should barely be able to push the current spec into the REC final state
- If we address new issues, it will cause a delay that will put the REC
at risk.
- If we do not address the new issues, the standard may not be adopted
anyway.
- While we may try an educated guess on best practices for the EU (e.g.
adding purposes),
  the true best practices in the EU will evolve in 2018 (or even later).
  [i.e. whatever we produce now may or may not be future-proof]

The ideal scenario I see is:
- We publish the current version as REC 1.0 to put a stake in the ground

and meet the deadlines in our charter
- We get new members on board to convince W3C that there is renewed interest
- We continue to improve our standard and shape the EU best practices
- We work towards a REC 1.1 in 2018 where we are confident
  that the emerging EU best practices are optimally supported.

This requires us to find a sufficient number of members and implementers

who re-engage
and say "yes, we believe that the TPE is a great technical means to help

compliance in the EU".

Other options (less favourable options) are:
- We publish the current draft as REC and stop/pause
- We add the purposes ASAP, publish another CR, and try to survive
  long enough to get the corresponding REC out.

In any case, pushing the current release out as-is seems to be the
preferred choice. Based on this version, we can then implement/design
extensions and evolve best practices. Once they get stable, we have
confidence how exactly an update should look like.

What do you think? Any input/feedback is welcome!


Regards,
matthias