RE: ACTION-326 and ACTION-327 BLOCKED on ISSUE-5

Thomas,

This is somewhat repetitive as 50% + of the working group is asking for the term to be defined.  Specifically, if we have a buzz term called "Do Not XYZ" and never define XYZ then what are we "Not Doing"?  Before you can build a solution, it's crucial to have a problem statement.  This problem statement would serve as a guide to all of your downstream activities and serve as the definition that all considerations can be tested against.  The fact the working group is slowing in our progress is we're now at a stage where everyone is looking around and asking "what are we trying to solve for again?" - as its clear we're trying to solve very different problems.  Since we've never had agreement on the problem, it'll be impossible (in my opinion) for us to agree on a solution.  Trying to construct a solution and then at the end define the problem appears backwards to many of us.

- Shane

From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:48 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Brendan Riordan-Butterworth; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-326 and ACTION-327 BLOCKED on ISSUE-5

On 2012-11-14, at 18:30 +0100, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:


Thomas,

To this statement: "tracking" (a term which doesn't show up in the current normative language..."

Please note the title of both documents.  :)  To me that is clearly "normative" in context.  Fair?

Actually, no -- the title of a specification isn't normative.  Sometimes, the title of a document is even just some acronym, like "HTML."

It would be good if you could point out where the definition of "tracking" influences the requirements that are placed on implementers, and it would be good if you could articulate what specific result you are trying to accomplish by defining "tracking".