Re: publishing Tracking Compliance as a Note

Hi Nick,

since this was the final vote "do we have consensus" (after a longer
discussion), I believe that your inputs are a bit late.

I am fine doing some editorial clarifications (your first paragraph).
However, I believe it is too late to add new claims "this can be used
for compliance" or endorse certain other compliance documents (while
omitting others).

If you like you can clarify the paragraph and then we try whether we
have consensus again.

Would this work for you?

Regards.
matthias

Am 28.11.2018 um 22:52 schrieb Nick Doty:
> I think that text is a good start, although it might not work exactly
> the same way with the Compliance document, as it was more targeted at
> first parties and third parties, rather than user agent adoption. I also
> think it might be helpful for us to note other ongoing work. Perhaps
> something along these lines, with small edits to your proposed text:
> 
>> Since its last publication as a Candidate Recommendation in April
>> 2016, there has not been sufficient adoption of the defined
>> compliance practices to justify further advancement, nor have there
>> been widespread indications of planned support among first parties,
>> third parties and service providers. The working group has decided to
>> conclude its work and republish the Compliance document as this Note,
>> with any future addendums to be published separately.
>>
>> This Note can be used to claim compliance, using the URI defined
>> below. In addition, tracking preference compliance policies have been
>> suggested by the following entities:
>> * [list of relevant compliance options]
> 
> I know that EFF had dnt-policy work that would be relevant to refer to.
> Are there others that would be useful to people who were directed to
> this document? I know DAA had suggested some alternative compliance, but
> I don’t know if that’s published somewhere that can be referred to.
> 
> Also, republishing this document as a Note also requires changing the
> URI that is used to refer to compliance in Section 3.1. That would be
> something like:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/NOTE-tracking-compliance-2018XXXX
> 
> I can make those changes, or if Bert is handling the publication, he can
> do so as well, just making sure the text of the document contains the
> URI that will refer to it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
>> <mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nick,
>>
>>
>> good point. If I understand you correctly, you support my (item 3) to
>> publish the compliance CR as a note:
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-compliance/
>>
>> I agree that it is a good idea to also extend the status. How about this
>> addition? (it is identical except that I replaced ...extensions... with
>> "compliance practices":
>>
>>> Since its last publication as a Candidate Recommendation in April
>>> 2016, there has notbeen sufficient adoption of _the defined
>>> compliance practices_ to justifyfurther advancement, nor have there
>>> been indications of planned support among user agents, third parties,
>>> and the ecosystem at large. Theworking group has therefore decided to
>>> conclude its work and republish the final product as this Note, with
>>> any future addendums to bepublished separately.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Regards,
>> matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 07.11.2018 um 04:38 schrieb Nick Doty:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:35 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
>>>> <mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> thanks a lot for updating the draft. I am fine with the current version.
>>>>
>>>> Team: These are the three documents we plan to publish as Notes:
>>>> 1. Roy's CR-converted-to-Note:
>>>> https://w3c.github.io/dnt/drafts/tracking-dnt.html
>>>> 2. Mike's Addenum:
>>>> https://w3c.github.io/dnt/drafts/PurposesAddendumMinimised.html
>>>> 3. I assume that our former compliance spec will continue to exist as
>>>> a Note.
>>>
>>>
>>> On point 3, I had meant to suggest this earlier (when TPWG was
>>> re-chartered focusing on TPE), but I think it would more accurately
>>> report the status if we also published the Tracking Compliance and
>>> Scope document (currently a Candidate Recommendation, I believe) as a
>>> Note, with an indicator of no current plans to advance along the
>>> Recommendation track. I’m not aware of any current publication as a
>>> Note, though Matthias refers to its continuing to exist — did I miss
>>> that publication?
>>>
>>> I believe we could use similar introductory/status text as on the TPE
>>> Note. I believe there were some claimed implementations, but not to
>>> the extent that the WG had believed justified continued work. The
>>> Note would also have a final URL so that one could continue to use it
>>> to claim compliance, but with the updated status. We could also use
>>> that to refer to links for other work on compliance policies, if
>>> people want to share links on that.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you would like me to draft the Note or if Team or
>>> someone else wants to handle it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Nick
>>>
>

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2018 08:02:30 UTC