Re: Path forward... (RESPONSE REQUESTED)

Hi Rigo,

Thanks for your reply. To further clarify my concern, in Sunnyvale I believe the TPWG agreed that:

  1.  The group should set a hard deadline for last call (July 24th was chosen) and work hard to meet that deadline with a last call document; and
  2.  The working group would re-evaluate the deadline, and whether to extend it or not, or continue the TPWG or not, IF it became obvious that we would not be able to meet the July 24th deadline.

It's now become obvious that we will not be able to meet the July 24th deadline, so I am concerned that we would have ANY discussion regarding substance of the specs themselves before we have a comprehensive TPWG conversation about a) should we extend the deadline (and if so, to when), or b) should we dissolve the working group (some support dissolving, and to be clear, that is not my stated position— though I believe those who do support this idea should be heard and considered).

Tomorrow is July 24th (deadline date), and since it's obvious we won't make our self-imposed deadline for last call, I think the the ONLY conversation we should be having tomorrow is about the process going forward and whether to extend the last call deadline (and if so, until when?), and if we should continue the group's work or dissolve.

Additionally, I have not seen a formal response to Roy Fielding's email reply to Peter's email on July 17th entitled, "Re: 'What Base Text to Use for the Do Not Track Compliance  Specification,'" where Roy makes several very compelling arguments regarding process.  Shouldn't those concerns, coming from a senior contributor to the W3C, be discussed openly with the TPWG before we proceed with more spec work?

I hope my concern is more clear now…  Let me know if you still don't understand.

Chris


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


On 7/23/13 11:07 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org<mailto:rigo@w3.org>> wrote:

Chris,

just to prepare the clarification discussion tomorrow (see agenda):

On Tuesday 23 July 2013 17:26:09 Chris Mejia wrote:
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.

I do not understand your concern here. Do you want to extend the 26 July
deadline for change proposals? What is your very concrete suggestion?


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.

What extension? If you want an extension, please clearly identify and
justify. I don't think chairs and W3C staff just make arbitrary
decisions on their own. Ok, sometimes it feels like it, but I really
don't think they do.

>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?

I think it is on the Agenda that Matthias has sent out.

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.

I hear you but would like you to be more specific in your request.


--Rigo