W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Resuming work on the TCS

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:20:17 -0800
Cc: "team-tracking-chairs@w3.org" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>
Message-id: <691D7962-C20C-4139-A453-2988B66BF629@apple.com>
To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>

On Feb 24, 2014, at 7:48 , Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:

> As you might imagine, Carl I see your response, as well… 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.

I fear that you forget that we are offered a clear alternative:  reach consensus within the working group, or deadlock and use the CfO process, and that for many of these debates, we have been discussing the question for years.

Yes, if we use the CfO process, people on one of the sides of the deadlock will be unhappy.  I suggest we try to make more progress through working on the substance of what we’re working on rather than the process of it, and on finding ways to reach consensus.  In a consensus, you may not get all you want, but you won’t lose completely either.  In a CfO, there is no synthesis, no middle position; the chairs can only select one of the offered alternatives.

> 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.

it could, of course, be something else.  For example, it might be that there were some trying to prevent any progress, and they realized that we now have a process that ensures movement, and therefore staying in the group to impede progress was no longer viable.  There are other possibilities, as well: another is that people might feel that they have given enough of their life to something that was supposed to have completed by now.

The CfO process has actually served the HTML WG well, in my opinion, though in that case, I don’t think anyone has suggested that there are members who would have preferred no progress, whereas that has been mooted as a possibility here.

> 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 “This approach has become all too common recently” refers. If you mean “forward progress and closure of items that have been discussed at length”, 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 “…understand that this is a challenge for some stakeholders” 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

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 23:21:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:07 UTC