- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:41:46 -0600
- To: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Quick question. I was reviewing the timeline at: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/ And noticed that Call for Implementations was missing (see this link: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr) Are we skipping this and going straight for CR (Call for Review of a Proposed Spec)? Peter ___________________________________ Peter J. Cranstone 720.663.1752 -----Original Message----- From: "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com> Date: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:17 PM To: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: f2f wrap up & next steps Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:39:01 +0000 >Greetings, > >Thank you to the 60+ people who attended the Seattle meeting, many of whom >flew great distances to make it. We walked in with two Compliance >proposals >that were far apart, with neither able to reach consensus in the form it >was >in. As a group we decided we needed to move the proposals closer to the >center, and we did just that. We walked out with an overall direction that >everyone can live with for permitted business uses, including proposed >text >for two of the five we discussed, and great new ideas. We can now see the >outline what DNT will look like and where we need to go. We took up some >of >the most contentious remaining issues, on purpose, and we made solid >progress on the hardest stuff. > >I am particularly pleased with proposals that allow business uses to >continue while improving privacy, by doing things a little differently >with >a low burden for implementation. That's a home run. That's exactly what we >are looking for, the point where everyone can live with the outcome. That >is >the hope and promise for DNT, and what we are all working so hard to >realize. We still have a lot to do. There are many details to fit into >place, some of them quite important to some stakeholders. We will work >through them. I was encouraged hearing people say, "This is not what I >would >choose, but I can live with it in order to move forward." Well done. >That's >how consensus happens. > >On TPE, editors will incorporate decisions that came out of the final day, >and then we will review the final text as a group to ensure all is as >agreed. Similarly on Compliance, the editors will write a strawman >proposal >that incorporates text from four different documents (existing draft, >proposed combination draft, proposal from Shane et al, proposal from >Jonathan et al.) That strawman is already well in progress thanks to our >talented editors. My hope is for a Compliance strawman draft by the week >of >July 2. As a group, we will then review all text that has not had >consensus >(that is, no need to re-review text that was already agreed upon in prior >drafts, nor the text we agreed upon while Nick live-edited during the >Seattle meeting.) We need to publish new drafts soon, since it has been >several months since our last publications. We will evaluate the state of >the drafts to see if we are ready to ask for input as a First Last Call >document with major issues resolved, or if we are looking at a Third >Public >Working Draft. > >Either way, I believe we will be far enough along for many potential early >adopters to begin their work on implementations without risk of redoing >major work, provided we are very clear about where work remains in flux. >To >do that well, as Ian points out, we will need at least one user agent >developing a compliant implementation so we can test interoperability. We >have already worked through about half of the issues on user agent >compliance with one conference call and an hour in Seattle. We'll work >through the rest in the fairly near term. After we review the strawman >draft, if you are planning on doing an implementation soon and there are >specific unresolved Compliance issues that would get in your way, I'm open >to prioritizing them earlier. Just let me know so I can make informed >scheduling trade offs. > >Our next face-to-face meeting will be in Europe, likely in mid- to late >September. If you have a location that can handle about 70 people in that >time frame for three days, please let us know the details. We have a >generous standing offer to go back to Brussels, though we try to hold >meetings in varied locations to distribute the travel burden. Once we know >our options we will use an online Doodle poll to understand which >possibilities allow the greatest number of TPWG members to attend, just as >we have done for past meetings. > >Coming soon... > - a new mailing list to receive external comments. By the time we get out >of Last Call, we'll have a few of those, plus comments from >implementations. > - Rigo will begin to organize the first draft of the Global >Considerations >document, which will be non-normative. > >To me, it felt like Seattle was the bumpiest f2f I've co-chaired. I am >thrilled to have new voices and a greater breadth of stakeholders, but it >is >challenging with different levels of understanding of the work to date. >Next >time, perhaps we need a mandatory in person pre-meeting for anyone who has >not attended a prior f2f. It's also hard to make progress with the sheer >number of people. I didn't scale with the group size as well as I'd like. >I >have some ideas and will keep thinking about that. And I made it harder on >all of us than it had to be because I started to get frustrated. We'd >spent >two months with radically different proposals and movement by inches when >we >needed yards. What I learned last week is to have more faith in the >ability >of the full group to get hard things done, and to trust the process. We're >making progress, moving toward the middle, and as Ed points out, we can >see >where the final compromise needs to be. Let's make it happen. > >Thank you again to Microsoft for the space, and for Facebook, Google, and >Yahoo! for hosting financially and feeding us. A special warm thank you to >JC for taking great care of us in his beautiful city of Seattle. If you >scribed last week - thank you! If you didn't - be ready to do so an >upcoming >call. :-) > > Aleecia >
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 20:42:26 UTC