More details on the proposed plan...

Dear Tracking Protection Working Group,

Below is our proposed plan how to move forward. This plan is based on the
listening tour of Jeff Jaffe, and our internal discussions with Jeff, W3C
Staff, and our editors.

The purpose of this plan is to serve as a basis for discussion and a 
for our "how to continue" poll that is detailed in a separate email. This
proposed plan constitutes our preferred way to continue.

Feedback is welcome,
   Matthias Schunter
   & W3C Team


* The Editors' Draft (based on the June draft) represents the most 
path toward consensus of the Working Group on the Tracking Compliance 

* The current Editors' Draft is only a starting point and  changes to it 
needed. For example, we will need to address the currently open Issues, 
and in
some places, new or existing non-normative text could be inserted to 
further guidance and clarification.

* For several major contentious Issues in the group we have had sufficient
debate that it appears unlikely that we will achieve unanimity for these

   ** It is recognized that there are various reasons that some of these
     Issues have not yet achieved consensus. For example, sometimes
     privacy could be better protected if there were more
     advanced technologies available, but these protections
     are too expensive to implement today.
   ** Thus, we are focused on the appropriate DNT solution for release
     in 2013-14 which we call DNT 1.0.  As technology and user
     references evolve, we fully expect that there will be further
     releases that address scenarios that are not well addressed today.
   ** We do not re-open closed Issues unless new information or insight
     has come up. Change proposals to the document will be entertained
     according to the decision criteria listed below.
   ** The requirement for new information also holds for individual 
     and counter-arguments within the scope of previous Calls for
     Objection. i.e., if the same text is submitted without
     substantial changes, then the arguments given in the Call for
     Objections are highly likely to still hold.

* We have created a schedule with dates that we feel give WG 
participants the
fair opportunity to react to their colleagues and are realistic in terms of
getting work done. Our focus is to create a schedule which we believe is

* We prioritize the Compliance specification (our main challenge) over 
the TPE
spec and will postpone substantial work on the TPE spec until the 
spec is ready for Last Call.

Phase 1: Finalizing our Preparations (September 2013)

* To finalize this plan
* To document the complete list of issues against the Editors' Draft and
     identify one or more draft text proposals for each issue.


1.  Finalize Plan:  We are hereby sharing the Chair and Staff's proposed 
to Get to Last Call" with the Working Group.
   ** Feedback will be accepted until September 9th.
   ** On the following Wednesday (11th or 18th) the Chair will publish a 
     and final Strategy to get to Last Call, incorporating input
     from the WG.

2.  Publish Working Draft: In keeping with W3C Process, we should publish a
heartbeat Working Draft for the public. We propose to publish a snapshot 
of the
current Editors' Draft, with a status section highlighting the list of 
proposals and a notice that the text is not final nor a consensus of 
not yet made.

3.  Finalise Complete Set of Issues: By October 2nd, all Issues that WG
participants want to raise with the Editors' Draft have been entered 
into the
Issues Tracker. Currently open Issues and newly raised Issues should be
annotated with rationales and change proposals as described below.
   ** It is required that any Issue explain the rationale for the change.
     The better rationale that is provided - the more likely that
     the Issue will be accepted and cause a change to the spec.
       *** A valid rationale is "to enhance privacy"
        *** A valid rationale is "to reduce an overly burdensome cost"
        *** A valid rationale is "need to add more clarity to a portion
         of the document which is unclear"
        *** A valid rationale is "need to add more specificity to a
         portion of the document which is vague"
   ** These are sample rationales, but there could be other rationales as
     well (if well-documented).
   ** Each Issue, both those that currently exist and those newly proposed,
     must have associated with it a "Change Proposal" - new proposed
     text for the draft, together with rationale.
   ** If an already closed Issue is re-raised without substantial new
     rationale and change proposal, it will remain closed.
   ** Any Issues raised after October 2nd will be treated as post-LC 
     We will create a separate product in the Tracker for vNext to
     collect issues to be addressed during the Last Call period or
     in future versions of the specifications.
   ** Our "Compliance June" product and issues list compiled by June
     26th may be sufficient, but this time period gives an
     additional opportunity to gather group input on specific concerns.
     It should also give us time, for example, to create specific issues
     with proposals out of issue-214.

Phase 2: Closing the finalised set of Issues
[Anticipated Start: October 2013]

Goals (for each issue):
* Finalise set of alternative change proposals to address the
     given issue (alternatives can include "no change")
* Choose one of the alternatives

* This phase is expected to begin once additional chairing resources
     have been identified, in order to promptly proceed through
     group decisions.
* We expect that by interleaving multiple issues at a time,
     one Issue can be closed per week.

Resolution Procedure for each Issue:

1.  Announce the issue under consideration "Please submit any counter 
or revisions to change proposals for ISSUE-[issuenr] by next week" and the
deadline for submitting final change proposals.

* The group discusses and finalizes change proposals. This step ensures 
     each issue has one or several finalized change proposals for
     resolution. The given Issue in tracker should have an associated
     Change Proposal, together with rationale.
* Additional Change Proposals or Counter-Proposals can be provided
     by anyone in the Working Group.
* The Chairs encourage dialog and compromise to encourage consensus
     in the group.
* If no change proposals for this issue are provided by the deadline,
     the Issue will be closed.

2.  At the deadline, the set of one or more alternative change proposals
is announced and are used as the input for a Working Group decision.

* Working Group Decision: The objective is that a consensus of the
     Working Group will emerge. In this case, the Chairs document
     such a consensus and the corresponding changes are added
     into the Editors' Draft.

* If there is no consensus, then the Chairs will issue a Call for 
     In this case, the resolution will be based on the Chairs'
     assessment of the relative strength of the arguments.
     Working Group decisions made through a Call for Objections
     are also documented in a revision of the Editors' Draft.

Publication Strategy:

* The current Editors' Draft (formerly June Draft, with revisions) is our
     starting point and we will first fine-tune this document
     for publication as a Working Draft.
* Whenever an Issue has been resolved, the corresponding changes will
     be included in the Editors' Draft.
* To give regular updates for the public, a snapshot of the Editors'
     Drafts will be published as a Working Draft every other month
     (submission on the first Tuesday of every month with an even number).
* Once all Issues have been processed according to these rules,
     the group will publish a heartbeat Working Draft.
     The chairs will submit this draft to the group, calling for a 
     to request publication as a Last Call Working Draft.
     (Last Call documents are still Working Drafts;
     the Last Call period is a chance to ask for wider public review.)

The Chairs may or may not schedule calls to discuss specific Issues and 
Group decisions.  As mentioned above, Chairs will use the Calls for 
process when they believe it is the best approach to resolve an Issue.

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 06:42:48 UTC