- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:53:33 +0200
- To: Marc Groman <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>
- Cc: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org, peter@peterswire.net
Rigo, The discussion on Go/NoGo in Sunnyvale F2F has been a milestone by itself. It allowed for the June Draft to arise (June 10), parallel to the Editor's Draft and the DAA proposal. In my view a reflection of where we are has been the plan the last few months and confirmed by the Chair on several occasions. The work between Sunnyvale and end of July has been conducted under the assumption of a new moment of assessing whether there is enough support in the room to continue the excersise. What was asked from the group was a very specific choice: - Option A: Adopt DAA proposal as base (i.e. Adopt the DAA proposal as base text, including to make the proposed changes to definitions of "tracking", "de-identified", "de-linked", and third-party compliance, and to delete any requirement to shift to no unique identifier where that is reasonably available.), and - Option B: Continue from Editors' draft as base (i.e. Continue to have the Editors' Draft as base text, and decide not to adopt the set of changes listed in Option A.) The group was not asked to object against an extension of the self imposed deadline. The deadline for Last Call still stands, including the task of assessing where the group is. mvg::Rob Exerpts from the minutes: Juli 10: peterswire: What I've said before is that we need an affirmative decision by the group about whether to continue after July, and the way to do that is to have input on this fork in the road. Juli 3: peterswire: moving to procedure. ...working w w3c staff, important end of july deadline. ...trying to get substantial sense of where we are by end of july Juni 19: peterswire: that's consistent with the idea of evaluating July 24. ... i hope we work well and effectively and can get to last call but recognize it's not inevitable. peterswire: timing: our last call deadline is end of july, july 31. It does not seem wise to be deciding on the last day....so the wednesday before that will be a key planned meeting to decide where the group is..... June 10: peterswire: "Working closely with W3C staff, and based on numerous discussions with members of the WG, this June Draft is my best current estimate of a document that can be the basis for a consensus document in time for Last Call." (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0031.html) Marc Groman schreef op 2013-07-23 01:29: > Rigo, > > Numerous participants in the TPWG -- on all sides and from all > perspectives -- seem to be repeatedly asking for clarification around > process, procedures, and decisions. I genuinely don't understand your > response to Rob van Eijk and I don't understand Thomas' response to > Alan Chappel. > > Sincerely, > > Marc > > --- > > Marc M. Groman > Network Advertising Initiative | Executive Director and General Counsel > 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006 > P: 202-835-9810 | mgroman@networkadvertising.org > > On Jul 22, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > > Rob, > > On Saturday 20 July 2013 20:07:30 Rob van Eijk wrote: > > Could you please confirm whether we will have a NoGo discussion? > > the W3C Process does not work like this. Fortunately, because IMHO we > would have ended long ago on a Go/NoGo question. > > The chairs have issued their opinion on what will be the basis for > further issue clearing. And their answer was clear. > > This does not remove the W3C Process nor does it mean that one Draft or > the other has received consensus. > > We had many attempts by the chairs and by several people to take the > fast track by finding a lump sum deal. Unfortunately, this hasn't > worked > out. You note that audience measurement is off the table. This is > great! > > I think we have some issues left. The most juicy one being de- > identification that some consider very de-identified and others > consider > far too identified. You have the merit to have started this inspiring > red/yellow/green discussion (or should we name it foo/bar/blob?) > > IMHO we have to carve out the details now. One by one. And the Group > has > done great work towards this goal. We just have to stick to our guns. > > --Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 09:54:16 UTC