RE: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

Shane,

Referring to the section in the minutes I pointed in my previous email:
aleecia: We could have two standards that come out of this group.
WileyS: I strongly disagree with THAT. Would be too confusing.
aleecia: How is that not what you just said?
WileyS: It's not responsible to put out the EFF proposal as a standard right now.
... Too many blanks to be filled in at a future data. Can't reach those aspirational goals today. Two standards might be worse than none.
... And eventually that proposal could supplant the interim (?) WileyS proposal? 

It seems to me that you mentioned that a standard would emerge if the W3C failed, not as an alternative to the compliance document. That was in the *previous* discussion "What does the landscape look like?" :
WileyS: If this group is unsuccessful, a DNT standard will still emerge. It does not need to be one from a w3c standard. 

In what *follows* the discussion about multiple standards there seems to be a consensus.

I don't like copy pasting minutes but I want to be sure that I am not misunderstanding something. If I did miss something, please let me know.

Thank you,
Vincent
________________________________________
From: Shane Wiley [wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:35 PM
To: TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT); Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Aleecia M. McDonald
Subject: RE: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public    compliance  commitment

Vincent,

I have NEVER felt having multiple standards was worse than having none - as we've always known there would be a different standard at the very least between the US and the EU - and I also state in that very same discussion that a standard from the DAA would emerge if the W3C did not.  So again, very far from "consensus" so it appears the most appropriate next step would be to open an issue on this topic.

Thank you,
Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: TOUBIANA, VINCENT (VINCENT) [mailto:Vincent.Toubiana@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:32 AM
To: Shane Wiley; Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Aleecia M. McDonald
Subject: RE: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

Shane,

I think Aleecia was referring referring to the discussion on the first day "How can we move on?" (http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-dnt-minutes#item05). Discussion starts with "aleecia: We could have two standards that come out of this group. "

>From the minutes, it seems that you agreed that having multiple standards was worse that having none. Although there was not humming, from the following discussion it looks like everyone agreed on that and preferred to have several iterations of the "Compliance documents" rather than several standards competing at given time.

It's true that there is no mention of using the WKL to indicate which standard the server is supporting, but in my opinion this is more a technical solution to address an issue than an issue itself.

I hope this will help.

Vincent

________________________________________
From: Shane Wiley [wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:16 AM
To: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Aleecia M. McDonald
Subject: RE: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public    compliance  commitment

I reviewed the meeting notes for all 3 days of Seattle and was unable to find a point of consensus - let alone directed and meaningful discussion - on the topic of allowing more than one compliance specification to co-exist as a valid WKL resource element.

Day 1:  http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-dnt-minutes

Some discussion around "What does the landscape look like?" about multi-standards but definitely no hum or consensus moment here (if anything the conversation skews towards suggesting a DNT standard will emerge with or without W3C with varying views if that's a good or bad thing in the US vs. EU).

Day 2:  http://www.w3.org/2012/06/21-dnt-minutes

In "Reflections", there is a mention from Aleecia that "Under any of these proposals, small OBA companies will go out of business" but no specific discussion of disallowing more than one compliance standard for implementers to aid or avoid this.  For example, general agreement on "Policy" field pointing to a human readable policy but no distinction on whether that policy could say "I support DNT and comply with DAA Principles - click here to learn more."

Day 3:  http://www.w3.org/2012/06/22-dnt-minutes

Discussion and general agreement on allowing optional reference URIs but not much details on the elements within each (outside of the deep dive on the Permitted Use enumeration with Tom).  No mention of multiple compliance standards being communicated (in the pro or con).

<Side Note - reading through 3 full days of both verbal and written notes is painful!  A HUGE hats off / round of applause to Nick Doty and whomever helped pull these notes together - WOW!>

So, post this lengthy review process, can I now please request that a new issue be opened for this topic?

Thank you,
Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:56 PM
To: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Aleecia M. McDonald
Subject: RE: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

Rigo,

No problem - I'll look at the meeting notes and post them to the group to provide evidence.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:45 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Shane Wiley; Aleecia M. McDonald
Subject: Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

Shane,

please do not overburden the chair. In W3C the Chair asserts consensus. This may be a feeling in the room. If you disagree, please provide evidence that the Chair was wrong assuming consensus.
You may find such evidence in the meeting minutes or on the mailing list.

This doesn't say who is right or wrong, but Chairs are vulnerable and exposed in the W3C Process and we have to protect them.

Rigo

On Thursday 06 September 2012 11:24:12 Shane Wiley wrote:
> I was in Seattle and don't remember us truly considering this option
> if you're referring to your exercise of walking the working group
> through alternatives if the W3C DNT standard was not completed - is
> that what you're referring to?  Could you please help me find the
> section in the meeting notes that you feel was a fair "group
> consideration and rejection" of this concept?
>
> Failing that, I believe this is a NEW and VALID issue for the group to
> discuss and consider (and either accept or reject).

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 15:08:54 UTC