Re: [meetings] Taking up Topics API for Next Meeting or Future Meeting? (#32)

@jwrosewell since you are not an agent of the CMA and I must assume that all participants, including Google, are acting in good faith, and we've already had an explanation from the W3C that I take [to indicate that incubation--in general--is a known process](https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/4#issuecomment-1065542141) I cannot effectively preempt some theoretical CMA action. Nor can I take into account your representation of voices that are free to participate here but have, thus far, not spoken up. (Unlike in the BG or a WG dedicated W3C membership is not a requirement for participation here.) That said, even taking it into account, the goal of bringing the Topics API into an incubation process would be specifically to make it more useful, which would presumably address those concerns. Until these other voices weigh in here in public I cannot take your representation of them as any larger then your individual role in the consensus process. 

As you can see in https://github.com/patcg/proposals/issues/4 we're looking at the Topics proposal for **incubation** specifically in order for it to be discussed and evolved to the state that it becomes implementable which acknowledges that any proposal in the current state is entering into incubation specifically in order to discuss how to get it to become generally agreed upon as implementable, a process that we all--I think--would agree makes sense as multi-party and in the open. 

I see you objections here, however, since they are not technical, I don't think they are of any relevance unless the CMA feels it has grounds to intercede. Additionally, as I'm not a lawyer and no W3C lawyer has told me otherwise, I have to assume that the Topics proposal does not violate the Antitrust Guidelines. Beyond your claim, I have no particular ground to judge it as such and would require some agent of the W3C to make a clear statement otherwise. Until I see either intercession, I can't accept this argument as a reason to cut off all discussion. 

If you feel you have objections to the proposed process of incubation within this group, please put them on the PR in respect to your objections to that specific process. 

In either case, this issue has been re-added to the Agenda on the grounds that we will discuss the status of what we're going to do as a group with the Topics API, not discuss the API itself. It is unclear what that will be at the time of writing because we have not reached consensus on either the incubation process or the state of the proposal. 

If you believe the Topics API represents a violation of some promised Google action through the act of proposing it, then the right place to take up that is on the proposal itself not here. If you have specific disagreements with the W3C's general processes I understand that you, through MOW, are actively pursuing them already in a more appropriate venue. This location is not the correct place for either of those complaints as we are not equipped with either the process or operating leverage to act on them. 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by AramZS
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/meetings/issues/32#issuecomment-1069169864 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2022 14:12:17 UTC