W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Path forward... (RESPONSE REQUESTED)

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:26:09 +0000
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, DNT LIST all <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Peter Swire - W3C TPWG Co-Chair" <peter@peterswire.net>
CC: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Marc Groman - NAI <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, Lou Mastria - DAA <lou@aboutads.info>
Message-ID: <7311AB05D142B6489F20AFA8DDAECAE8E54628ED@IAB-NYC-EX1.IAB.local>
W3C Staff and Co-Chairs,

I echo Alan's concern on process.  In Sunnyvale, as I supported the approach to "commit to a hard deadline and then re-evaluate that deadline if it became apparent that we were going to miss it," I and others emphasized that it would have to be a working group decision to extend— that it would not be at the sole discretion of the co-chairs nor W3C staff to extend on their own accord.  At that time, co-chairs and staff supported my stated position, which I think was a responsible choice.  But now it seems that you are once again veering away from W3C process and veering away from your commitment to the working group to discuss extension before unilaterally making the choice for us.  From the emails this week, it seems quite obvious that that TPWG (both camps) want to have a discussion on processing moving forward on this week's call— why won't you entertain this discussion?  It's a reasonable request, isn't it?  For the record, these are not a rhetorical questions— I would appreciate a thoughtful and comprehensive answer— this hard working group deserves as much.

Thank You,


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB | chris.mejia@iab.net

From: Alan Chapell - Chapell Associates <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:51 AM
To: Matthias Schunter - WC3 WG Co-Chair <mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Path forward...
Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:52 AM


Thanks for sharing. It is now clear that W3C staff and our co-chairs are intent on moving forward without a discussion of process re: the June Draft and without a group discussion based upon our mutually agreed upon evaluation deadline. I respectfully object to this approach and look forward to discussing further on Wednesday's call.


From: "Matthias Schunter (Intel)" <mts-std@schunter.org<mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>>
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:26 PM
To: DNT LIST all <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Path forward...
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:27:35 +0000

To the Group:

          When we first discussed the current Editor’s Draft (formerly known as "June Draft"), Jonathan was rightly concerned about the implications of that choice for our schedule:  In Sunnyvale, we had agreed to work against a July 31<x-apple-data-detectors://0> deadline.

          It is now time to take stock of the hard work that the group has done since:  We have 23 specific change proposals against the Editor’s Draft, and a set of issues against the “Compliance June” product:

          Further, we have, using the call for objections process, recorded a Working Group decision (closing ISSUE-215) to continue with the Editor’s draft as a baseline text, as opposed to the change proposal offered by the DAA and other advertising groups (as amended):

          We believe that, together, the decision on ISSUE-215, the issues list, and the list of change proposals give us a clear (and well-defined) work program toward Last Call, and a decision on the direction going forward.   As a group, we will review the individual change proposals, look for counterproposals and perfecting amendments, and either agree on a single approach, or use the call for objections process to move forward.

          In terms of near-term plans, a personal note from Peter: With the packers at my house now, and my upcoming marriage, I will not participate in any calls the rest of July and August. Matthias has graciously agreed to chair the call on 24 July<x-apple-data-detectors://5> on both his and my behalf.  W3C staff and Matthias will work hard on detailed project planning based on the issues list and change proposals over the first half of August.  That planning can form the basis for resuming issue-by-issue work on the compliance specification after the summer break.

          We look forward to your input on this approach and further discussion on the call this Wednesday.

          Matthias Schunter
          Peter Swire
          Co-chairs, W3C TPWG

Sent from a phone...
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 17:27:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:53 UTC