Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)

Good Morning Carl,

Thank you for your timely response.

I would like to respectfully point out that my original request was for a three week extension from the October 2 deadline.  See my email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0101.html 

I just want to make clear that my request below is consistent with my original request and that my initial request was not fully satisfied by a two week extension.

Because the TPWG already has 23 issues that have been fully submitted and are ready for the TPWG to address, and will likely take months to address, can you help me understand how an additional week to submit more material against the new issues would affect any future TPWG deadlines.

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 Oct 15, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:

> Jack –
>  
> Thank you for the mail of this morning.
>  
> I have considered your request, and have discussed it with another chair and members of the team.   Unfortunately, because we are attempting to minimize the time it takes to move to completion, I am going to have to respond that the due date suffer no further delays. (Please note that we have already, at your request, extended it two weeks.)  
>  
> The additional supporting material is absolutely necessary for us (as chairs and as a group) as we look at the results of the poll and what changes may be necessary. It is our (the chairs) basic material for schedule consideration and comment resolution.  The need to complete both specifications has not gone away – nor have the substantive comments are relevant to the issues at hand. I do not believe that the issues will either expand or contract with the poll results – the only thing that will change (in probability, given the nature of the group) will be a structuring and ordering of the issues.  The issues – and the comments supporting them – should remain the both identical and valid.
>  
> With respect to your concerns about the volunteer participants – I point out that the chairs too fall in that category, and that we too are subject to competing priorities and also are attempting to allocate our resources. Hence, the willingness to devote an entire session in discussion of the issues raised in the poll and a stock-taking of how the members of the would like to improve the activities to be more efficient in meeting the goals of the charter – and reduce, ultimately, the time necessary to complete.
>  
> I hope that this note answers your request and satisfies you with the reason for not extending the deadline. I note that you are scheduled for a slot tomorrow, and look forward to hearing your suggestions on a way forward.
>  
> Carl
>  
> Carl Cargill
> Principal Scientist, Standards
> Adobe Systems
> Cargill@adobe.com
> Office: +1 541 488 0040
> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
> @AdobeStandards
> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>  
>  
>  
> From: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr [mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7:45 AM
> To: Carl Cargill
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)
>  
> Good Morning Carl,
>  
> Thank you for providing the modified agenda for Wednesday, the TPWG Chairs' initial thoughts on the poll results, and the rules for Wednesday's call.
>  
> With so much up in the air, I respectfully request the TPWG Chairs' to please consider suspending at least the October 16 due date for providing additional material against the newly submitted issues.  Providing substantive additional material requires significant resources from participants in the TPWG and others within their organizations.  As you can imagine, it is difficult to make responding to the October 16 deadline a top priority after the poll has indicated the current path forward will at least be modified.  This very real resource issue and concern reflects the views of many of the volunteer participants in the TPWG from all sides of the discussion who have competing priorities and are seeking to efficiently allocate scarce resources. 
>  
> The TPWG Chairs' timely consideration of suspending the October 16 deadline would be greatly appreciated.
>  
> 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 Oct 13, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All -
> 
> Below is the modified agenda for next Wednesday, 16 October 2013.
> 
> The session will be focused on the recently completed poll and is intended to help the chairs, management team, and the committee more thoroughly understand and appreciate the results.
> 
> It is intended to be a brainstorming session in which comments are solicited to help us understand why members voted as they did.  Because of the number of responses we have (43), we’ll limit each comment to 3 or less minutes (brevity is prized). As in any brainstorming session, the emphasis is on constructive comments that are intended to help the chairs and committee move forward and succeed.
> 
> Comments and suggestions on the agenda are welcomed.
> 
> Carl Cargill
> 
> ===========
> 
> 1. Confirmation of scribe.  Volunteers welcome
> 
> 2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions)
> 
> 3. DISCUSSIONS
> 
> The session this week will center on a discussion of the poll that was completed this past week.  With the results in, there are several conclusions that can be drawn from the results.
> 
> 1.    A significant minority of participants prefer to stop the group (Option 5), although the majority would like to continue the work in some form.
> 
> 2.    While the majority wanted to continue the group, a considerable number recommended a different plan by opting for options 3 or option 4.
> 
> 3.    There is dissatisfaction with the current process and the way to progress the committee.
> 
>  
> 
> Given this background, the TPWG Chairs and W3C Management team feel that there is a desire to move forward, but we also feel is in necessary to spend some effort both improving or changing the plan; and working with the WG to build confidence in the plan.  To that end, we will be structuring the discussion to allow everyone on the call a chance to provide constructive suggestions to move the group forward. The Chairs will use this input to re-think the plan and process.  We want to have the benefit of this dialog before we sit down with the Director to review the poll results
> 
> Each member of the committee will be allowed to speak to speak to describe how to improve the plan, process, or working group confidence (until we run out of time.)  To make time for everyone possible, we’ll limit comments to 3 minutes. I will rigorously enforce the 3 minute limit, and will also work to the following brainstorming rules – that is, no criticism or other’s ideas, and one or two positive proposals for moving the group forward. You may build on a previous suggestion; you may not critique or criticize one. We are working within a confined scope (defined by the charter) and will expect comments within that framework.  All comments will be considered by the chairs.
> 
> Underlying assumptions:
> 
> the current Charter will not be revised or modified;
> The group will continue work and will produce a specification (or two) that will focus on solving the issue specified in the charter.
> Your proposal may be augmented by sending the committee something in support of your comments before or after the discussion on Wednesday. To be effective, we’d suggest no more than two days after the discussion.
> 
> We will also be reporting the results of the discussion and poll to the Director for his use in determination of the necessity of changes in direction or of the continuation of the committee.
> 
> N.B.  I will be unreasonably quick and merciless in stopping comments that are either out of scope or critical of other’s comments or suggestions.
> 
> In the discussions, preference for speaking will be given to those who cast a vote since they have obviously formed and expressed an opinion, and we’d like to know (more of) their reasons for their votes. We will start at the top of the responders list and work our way down the list. There were 43 responses.  Three and a half minutes each (.5 minute to switch) gives us a total of 150 minutes; we have 90 minutes available. We will cover as many of the possible respondents as possible in the allocated time.  Those who do not have a chance to speak and wished to make a point may do so via e-mail.
> 
> While I appreciate that this is a relatively Draconian approach, it is the only method by which the chairs feel that we can get positive suggestions on a structured manner in a short time.
> 
>  
> 
> ======  Infrastructure ===========
> 
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> 
> VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
> 
> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225) IRC Chat: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
> 
> OFFLINE caller identification:
> 
> If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call
> 
> (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in my case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of time. If you are not comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone number, please email your name and phone number to npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce (in fact, eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.
> 
>  
>  
>