Re: Resuming work on the TCS

As you might imagine, Carl I see your response, as wellŠ non-responsive.

What you choose to characterize as "forward progress and closer of items
discussed at length" oftentimes comes across as chairs running roughshod
over those who disagree with them and all too often failing to defend your
decisions with more than "we considered others' opinions and found them
unpersuasive."  That's a great way to get a spec done quickly, but in my
opinion, that's no way to operate a process if you want an outcomes that is
considered legitimate.

In short, I'm asking that the chairs show their work on a more consistent
basis. This is particularly important given a poorly defined CFO process
that all too often comes across as the chairs cherry picking responses to
fit their own pre-conceived views. I (and others) have consistently asked
for process clarifications. I am positive that the downturn in activity and
group participation over the past six months is a direct result of a working
group who are frustrated to the point of exhaustion.

That said, I appreciate your response.

Alan

From:  Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>
Date:  Friday, February 21, 2014 8:24 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, W3C DNT Working Group
Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc:  "team-tracking-chairs@w3.org" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>
Subject:  RE: Resuming work on the TCS

> Alan ­
>  
> There is little more information to share. As I stated, we looked at the
> rationale for delay, counterpoised it with the rationale to continue, and came
> down on the side of the need to press forward.  I am not sure exactly to what
> your phrase ³This approach has become all too common recently² refers. If you
> mean ³forward progress and closure of items that have been discussed at
> length², then yes, I plead guilty. While I acknowledge that we did not side
> with your stated position, I hardly feel that not agreeing with you serves as
> any indication that we did not consider your position.  Please note the
> statement that we ³Šunderstand that this is a challenge for some stakeholders²
> which would indicate that we did consider the problems and issues you raised.
> However, in the face of needing to satisfy a larger set of stakeholders and
> the community at large by maintaining a schedule (which is a paramount value),
> we opted to satisfy the requirements of the larger set of constituents.
>  
> With respect to a CfO, CfOs are supposed to be for technical objections to a
> spec. Not applicable in this case.
>  
> I trust that this satisfies your request for further clarification; as I said,
> the chairs felt that maintaining the schedule (which the group as a whole
> agreed to in October of 2013) was of paramount importance. The issue that you
> raised now should have been part of the consideration given when the October
> decision was taken and moved by the group.
>  
> For the Chairs ­
>  
> 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: Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:26 AM
> To: Carl Cargill; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> Cc: team-tracking-chairs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Resuming work on the TCS
>  
> 
> Thanks Carl - 
> 
>  
> 
> Can you share more information regarding the chairs' decision to move forward?
> 
>  
> 
> Justin indicated on last week's call that he was willing to honor the will of
> the group. Your rationale below clearly takes into consideration the opinions
> of the group members who want to move forward immediately, but does not
> demonstrate that any consideration was given to the feedback from group
> members who want to incorporate learnings prior to moving forward. This
> approach has become all too common recently. This is particularly troubling
> given that such feedback was provided by those who will be tasked with
> implementing this standard.
> 
>  
> 
> Moreover, why wasn't this issue decided by the will of the group with a CFO?
> 
>  
> 
> I recognize that W3C process allows for issues to be re-opened with new
> information.  While I'm sure it has happened at some point, personally, I
> can't recall a recent instance where an issue has been reopened in this
> working group. Given that the opinions of the chairs and w3c staff are
> abundantly clear in this area, it would seem that the bar for re-opening an
> issue here is that much higher.
> 
>  
> 
> If you could shed some further light on your rationale, I'd appreciate it.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>  
> 
> Alan
> 
>  
> 
> From: Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>
> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:54 PM
> To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Cc: "team-tracking-chairs@w3.org" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>
> Subject: Resuming work on the TCS
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:54:49 +0000
> 
>  
>> 
>>  
>> All ­
>> There was substantial discussion at the last meeting regarding the timing of
>> the restart of the work on the TCS,  following the completion of the work on
>> the TPE.
>> The Chairs considered the points made for delay carefully, and laid them out
>> against the rationale for immediately continuing. The key issues for
>> continuing with the current schedule fell into several categories.
>> €                    Process and procedural issues - Based on the WG input we
>> made the decision in October to prioritize TPE but to advance the two
>> document in parallel again after Last Call. If the TCS is delayed by several
>> months, the further advancement of TPE to Candidate Recommendation will be
>> slowed by the same amount.
>> 
>> €                    User/stakeholder pressure for a W3C compliance
>> specification.  There have been calls for the compliance spec from users and
>> stakeholders. This works against the slippage of the schedule.
>> 
>> €                    Resource issues. Generally, based on experience in
>> standardization, the resources necessary for conformance specification
>> writing are usually different than those necessary to write an implementation
>> of the TPE.
>> 
>> After consideration of the multiple points, it was decided that the need to
>> maintain the TPWG approved and requested schedule for the TPE and TCS was
>> significant enough to begin work on the TCS sooner rather than later. As we
>> have done since October, TCS will deal with issues with the same process used
>> for completion of the TPE.
>> While we understand that this is a challenge for on some stakeholders, we
>> believe that the larger community will be better served by moving ahead ­ as
>> scheduled ­ with the TCS.
>> For the Chairs,
>> Carl Cargill
>> 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
>>