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

Re: Call for objections

From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:34:16 -0500
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E5EAE50-FF95-4095-9B87-E3D41D781104@cdt.org>
To: "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org>
Again, the CFO was announced on the call on Wednesday.  The process in place is two weeks from Wednesday as stated on the call and in the weeks leading up to the call.  It remains so.  Two weeks from the Wednesday call will be the process going forward for future calls for objection; we deliberately made this a rather long two-week window to account for possible confusion or minor issues that might come up (though I'm not sure this even qualifies).  If you wish to offer a substantive rationale for an extension, it will be considered, though at this point it would be belated as none has been offered in response to several requests.

Relatedly, I cannot promise that there will be no variations in scheduling and procedure going forward.  We are trying to be consistent, but we also trying to iterate in response to the will of the working group.  The basic plan is well-established:  debating individual issues seriatim, considering and consolidating texts, trying to achieve consensus on the calls and in the emails, and moving to call for objection to close out unresolved issues.  If this process fails or needs to be tweaked, however, we will consider other options and structures --- we are not going to be hidebound by process just for the sake of consistency.  This is an organic working group trying in good faith to develop a workable technical standard about a Do Not Track signal.

I will send out an agenda later today for this Wednesday's call.  I understand that several people will be at TPAC, so the call may be somewhat shorter than normal if we don't have full participation.  However, I think we can advance several issues along in the process (especially as there has been little debate about them on the list).

On Nov 11, 2013, at 10:15 AM, "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> Justin,
> 
> Intensely formalized?  With all due respect, I have to disagree with you on that characterization. The one thing that most TPWG participants agree on is that over the past two years the process has been erratic, decisions have been arbitrary, procedures get documented and then changed, and even simple rules (to the extent we have them) are ignored repeatedly. This isn't about the current co-chairs and I genuinely appreciate your frustration, but we have a long and well documented history of expressed displeasure and frustration over process issues from every corner of the Working Group. 
> 
> I echo the request that the TPWG follow the process expressed by Matthias in which the two-week clock starts when the formal email goes out.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jack
> 
> Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
>> We said on the call and on the agenda that the CFO would close on the 20th; that is the process.  I don't remember anything tied to a "formal email" from Nick.  The options have been static.  Again, if you want to make an argument why you need more time, the Chairs will consider it, but the Chairs will also weigh that against the inconvenience of a deadline on a Friday night for others.  We have had those before and I did not like them (nor did my wife).  Then again, I don't have to do one this time so . . .
>> 
>> This is a working group --- please, let's try to work together!  This process is already intensely formalized and overly dominated by discussions of meta-issues.  If people would prefer to discuss the merits of various definitions of "share" or whether user agents need to implement the exception mechanism, that would be rather welcome (if contentious in their own ways)!
>> 
>> Have a lovely weekend all!  If people have been grumpily sitting on objections to various party definitions, please add them to the website!
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Justin,
>>>  
>>> Please follow process – that is all we are asking.  The clock starts when the formal email goes out.  Please don’t add further subjectivity to an already subjective process.  It was my hope that the feedback across the board provided during the Poll had sufficiently conveyed this message to staff and co-chairs. 
>>>  
>>> I understand you each have day jobs – we each do as well.  But perhaps more fundamentally, the core ecosystem by which our companies operate could be irreparably harmed by significant missteps in this process.  Issues 5 & 10 are substantial issues to solve for so please provide the transparency and consistency in following the process that had been laid out nearly a month ago (process version 4 or 5 at this point).
>>>  
>>> Thank you,
>>> - Shane
>>>  
>>> From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org] 
>>> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:50 PM
>>> To: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>> Subject: Re: Call for objections
>>>  
>>> As is usually the case, I suspect people are going to wait until the last minute to put up objections.  For the sake of the group, I would rather the deadline be Wednesday night instead of Friday night.  The options have been static for some time and there has been little discussion of the listserv about any of them.  If you want to make a substantive argument why you need two extra days to formulate an objection either on parties or tracking, please do so, but the group has now had several weeks to debate and consider both of these issues (including a full extra week that was inserted into the process).  Given the length of responses that we have historically received, I find it hard to believe that people are going to spend more than an hour or two on either one (again, work which could have been started a long time ago if one were so inclined).
>>>  
>>> That said, I do appreciate the feedback that you would like the options put up on Wednesday from now on, and I will strive to make that happen.  Like all of you, I have another job that I am trying to do in addition to (co-)chairing this group.  The chairs are in three different time zones with frenetic travel schedules, so we don't always coordinate as closely as we should.  But I will take the desire to get the CFO immediately up after the call to heart, and hopefully this can happen going forward.
>>>  
>>> The ISSUE-5 Call for Objection will be going up shortly!
>>>  
>>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 4:29 PM, "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Justin,
>>>  
>>> My recollection from Wednesday’s weekly W3C call is also that at least one of the Chairs stated that the two week period would begin with the official email calling for objections.
>>>  
>>> Best regards,
>>>  
>>> Jack
>>>  
>>> Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>>> Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology 
>>> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
>>> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Justin,
>>>  
>>> Did an email go out calling for the CFO and providing the links at that time?  I believe the 2-week clock should start then.  Fair?  This is the process that Matthias had agreed to (email with CFO, 2 weeks from that point).
>>>  
>>> - Shane
>>>  
>>> From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org] 
>>> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 2:19 PM
>>> To: John Simpson
>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>> Subject: Re: Call for objections
>>>  
>>> The options were presented to the group on the call on November 6th --- it took us a couple of days to get the options up, but I'd like to stick with the original deadline of November 20th (as was announced on the call and previously).  CFO on ISSUE-10 is here, ISSUE-5 should be up soon.
>>>  
>>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 4:14 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Chairs,
>>> 
>>> Shouldn't there be a call for objections posted for Issue-6 and Issue-10?  I understood they were to be posted on Nov. 6 and closed on Nov. 20.  Since it's Nov. 7 and they still aren't posted, does that mean the closing date gets pushed back?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
> 
Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 15:34:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:20 UTC