[wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Private Advertising Technology Working Group Charter'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review:
Private Advertising Technology Working Group Charter' (Advisory Committee)
for Mozilla Foundation by Tantek Çelik.


The reviewer's organization suggests changes to this Charter, and only
supports the proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection].

Additional comments about the proposal:
   We support this charter with only two procedural Formal Objections:

1. "Chairs  [chair name] (affiliation), [chair name] (affiliation)" needs
to have actual individual names and affiliations for an informed approval
of this charter.
2. "Team Contacts  [team contact name] (0.1 FTE)" needs to either have an
actual team contact name or "None."

And we suggest (not FO) improving the Success Criteria
https://www.w3.org/2022/08/PROPOSED-PATWG-charter.html#success-criteria as
follows:

3a. There may have been confusion between Candidate Recommendation Draft
(CRD) and Candidate Recommendation Snapshot (CRS), as the charter implies
CRD happens before CRS, when that is not the case per the Process which
makes it clear that a CRD reflects changes since a CRS:
https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#candidate-recommendation-draft.
If this was a mistake in the charter, then adjust references to
“Candidate Recommendation Snapshot” below to “Candidate
Recommendation Draft” accordingly.

3b. The proposed Success Criteria mentions Candidate Recommendation
Snapshot and does not mention Proposed Recommendation.

If the omission of explicit mention of Proposed Recommendation (PR) was
unintentional, that should be fixed with explicit mention of conditions for
transitioning to Proposed Recommendation (which the following comments
would then likely apply to)

If however, the omission of PR was intentional, then this text:

“It is expected that to reach the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
stage, each normative specification is expected to have at least two
independent implementations of every feature defined in the
specification."

should be expanded to include interoperability as determined by passing
open test suites e.g.:

"It is expected that to reach the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot stage,
each normative specification must have at least two independent
interoperable implementations of every feature defined in the
specification, where interoperability can be verified by passing open test
suites, and two or more implementations interoperating with each other."

4. The text: "There should be testing plans for each specification,
starting from the earliest drafts." should be followed by text such as
"Each normative specification must have an open test suite of every feature
defined in the specification."

This is example Success Criteria text, we are ok with the Working Group
rewriting it as they see fit as long as they maintain the requirements
contained therein. The CSS Working Group and Web Apps Working Group
charters have similar requirements that may also help.

Thank you for your consideration. If I had more time, I would have written
a shorter objection. (with apologies to Blaise Pascal)


The reviewer's organization intends to participate in these groups:
   - Private Advertising Technology Working Group

The reviewer's organization:
   - intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments.
   - intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience
reports.
   - intends to develop products based on this work.
   - intends to apply this technology in our operations.

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/PATWG-charter-2022/ until 2022-10-05.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Thursday, 22 September 2022 03:24:04 UTC