RE: meaning of DNT 1 and DNT 0 when sent by user agents [ISSUE-78]

Rigo,

I was not actually commenting on W3C procedure as much as I was mentioning that it seems trivial and inefficient to argue over specific wording when the underlying decisions have yet to be made, especially when making those decisions will also resolve the argument as well, which I believe to be the case here.

The question of our ultimate objective needs to be answered.  

One proposed objective is: 

**To provide a mechanism whereby a user can indicate preference to disallow cross-site tracking**

I do not believe I am alone in thinking that we at one time had consensus that this was our objective.  However, I am no longer sure this is the case.  It sounds like some parties would prefer an objective closer to:

Prevent cross-tracking + X

However, I have not seen any clear proposals as to what X should be.  I have seen a few suggestions focusing on different privacy related issues, but nothing comprehensive nor anything that has gained any real traction within the group as a whole.  However, if the group decides to expand upon or completely go away from the objective of preventing cross-site tracking, then I am confident that the documents will be changed accordingly.  Likewise, if the objective is once again (or perhaps for the first time) solidified as mentioned above, then most objections to the current language will likely dissipate leaving only organizational discussions remaining on this topic.

I therefore recommend again that this topic be tabled until at least the above decision has been made.

Cheers,

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:13 AM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Kevin Smith
Subject: Re: meaning of DNT 1 and DNT 0 when sent by user agents [ISSUE-78]

Trimming CC... 

Kevin, 

unfortunately, the W3C Process doesn't work like this. Roy has introduced wording into the TPE Specification. Fine. I spotted that this wording has substantial policy-semantics (as opposed to HTTP-semantics) and raised the issue that this would deeply affect the scope and understanding of the TCS Specification. Aleecia was so kind to open ISSUE 117 in the issue tracker. We have to resolve this issue by last call. 

W3C Process hinders introducing language and keeping it until REC while the issue remains open. And there is no chance that the TPE Specification will go out with the wording in question without the WG having had a decision on this. 
So we can't just introduce wording and then say: "you'll need consensus to remove it again and I vote no". The default of the W3C Process is the other way around. 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus

As a final consequence this also means that if this group is unable to find consensus on the TPE Specification, this Specification will never arrive at Recommendation and we'll be seen to have failed. 

Best, 

Rigo

On Monday 16 January 2012 22:37:47 Kevin Smith wrote:
> However, in the short term, I think it's best to agree to disagree.  
> Roy is clearly not going to follow Jonathan's suggestion until/unless 
> he feels the rest of agree with him, which we don't (at least not all 
> of us).  So, I suggest we table this conversation until we have a few 
> more relevant ones in person next week.

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 17:02:52 UTC