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

Re: issue and action cleanup proposals

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 17:58:01 -0700
To: Yianni Lagos <ylagos@futureofprivacy.org>
Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6F5C16BFF7F1440C96D2BE4E2D9768E1@gmail.com>
W3Cers,

When this issue cleanup was pitched on last week's call, I explicitly sought and received a clarification that the aim was solely uncontroversial maintenance.  Group leadership and staff confirmed several times that the effort was not intended to address substance and that any particular change would be paused if a member expressed concern.  I carefully reviewed the cleanup proposal, and I have expressed concerns about controversial and substantive impacts of several changes.  I am eager to resume conversation on any of these ISSUEs instead of spending yet another compliance call on meta-discussion.  In the interim, please honor the process that you established.

Best,
Jonathan


On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Yianni Lagos wrote:

> Hello,
>  
> Peter has asked me to draft point-by-point comments to Jonathan's post about the issues list.  Below please find my thinking behind the recently circulated issues list.  We plan to discuss on Wednesday's call.
>  
> All the best,
> Yianni
>  
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu (mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu)> wrote:
> > Yianni and Nick,
> >  
> > Thanks for taking the lead on cleaning up the issue tracker.  Much needed.  
> >  
> > Some thoughts on particular changes:
> >  
> > -ISSUE-24 (fraud prevention) is flagged for PENDING REVIEW because of "no recent discussions"… but we spent an entire session at the last F2F on security and fraud!  The group remains at an impasse on whether prospectively tracking users for fraud prevention (or security precautions) is acceptable.  If competing text proposals were more explicitly in the draft, I would be comfortable going to PENDING REVIEW.  
>  
> The discussions at the F2F were about the benefits of unique identifiers for security and fraud prevention.  We are opening up a new issue explicitly for the discussion of unique identifiers.  
> >  
> > -ISSUE-191 (non-normative de-identification) should not be merged into ISSUE-188 (definition of de-identification).  There is a substantial disagreement in the group about whether to give clear examples on de-identification, independent of what the definition is.  Dan and John have been particularly active on this topic.  
>  
> Examples are important to the definition of de-identification and those discussions can continue under ISSUE-188.     
>   
> >  
> > -I'm hesitant to cram ISSUE-132 (intermediaries), ISSUE-150 (multiple user agents), ISSUE-151 (exception API requirement), ISSUE-163 ("twist[ed]" user preferences), and ISSUE-177 (non-user agent compliance) into ISSUE-194 (user consent).  We may decide to address these issues explicitly and independently.  Or we may decide that they can all be addressed with a single, high-level provision.  Either way, I think we'd be remiss to drop precision in viewpoints and historical context.  If there were a way to flag ISSUE dependencies or sub-ISSUEs, that could be ideal here.  
>  
> Issue 150, 163, and 177 are still in the raised category with no action items and no text.  There have been no action items under issues 132, 151, and 194.      
> >  
> > -I believe ISSUE-184 was about whether a first-party website can condition access to a service on consent to tracking by third parties.  Many U.S. participants (myself included) appear comfortable allowing these practices.  Some EU participants (including Walter and Rob) expressed concerns.  I wouldn't move the topic to PENDING REVIEW until we have at least a little live discussion and competing proposals in text.  
>  
> The issue is still in the raised category with no discussion, action items, or text proposed.  We can open this issue if text is proposed.  
> >  
> > -I'm not certain why, but the only "collection" definition (ISSUE-16) in the current draft includes a vague carveout for "transient" retention.  That certainly doesn't reflect consensus.  If the editors add an option without that caveat, I would support moving to PENDING REVIEW.  
>  
> If others have the same concern, we should add another option or note in the Editors’ draft.  
> >  
> > -Many participants, myself included, only offered to to include affiliates in the first party definition (ISSUE-10) if there were concessions on substantive privacy limitations.  Those concessions have not materialized.  I would not agree to move ISSUE-10 from OPEN to PENDING REVIEW unless the draft includes an alternative text proposal that does not include affiliates.  
>  
> If others have the same concern, we should add another option or note in the Editors’ draft.   
> >  
> > -On ISSUE-31, there are two separate topics.  First, do we have a global minimization requirement—and if so, how rigorous is it?  Second, what are the (presumably heightened) minimization and transparency requirements if a website exceeds a specified retention period?  We shouldn't conflate these two topics; I would suggest creating a new ISSUE for the latter and renaming the former for clarity.  
>  
> There is stable text around a global minimization requirement, and still debate around including any specified retention period.  
> >  
> > Best,  
> > Jonathan
> >  
> >  
> > On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > > As mentioned on the call today, we've been looking at cleaning up the issues and actions in our tracker to more accurately represent the state of work and focus on issues and actions where the group is actively working. This represents some cleanup, merging of related issues, creation of a new issue, closing of a couple issues.
> > >  
> > > Attached in HTML format, with each relevant issue, its current state, what action to be taken with it, and a note or explanation. (Yianni has done more of the work here, with a little help from me; I've formatted it hopefully so everyone can view it usefully.)  
> > >  
> > > For the actions, I've proposed which to close or keep open, with a note where relevant, and a handful of these I'm just not sure the status of. Those that remain open we will mostly need to create new due dates for, and then follow through on completing those. If you have an action here that actually has been completed or pre-empted, just let us know.  
> > >  
> > > Comments welcome.
> > >  
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nick
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Attachments:  
> > > - action-issue-cleanup.html
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
>  
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 00:58:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:10 UTC