W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2017

CfO on Issue 22 - Strong objections to both options ;-(

From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:28:15 +0200
To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b640aa2b-ee4a-a151-2589-264094b8ad2b@schunter.org>
Dear TPWG,

I now took some time to analize both sets of objections.

Both sides have strong objections:
- Not inserting additional information means that we may not satisfy the
  transparency requirements put forward by the EU  and thus puts us as
  risk of not reaching our chartered goal.
- Inserting the proposed text may also not be sufficient to reach this
  goal (there may be more fields and data required such as purpose)
  furthermore, the meaning of the field seems to be not 100% clear.

I now believe that it is premature to define the right field or set of

I strongly believe that it is too early to identify the best set of
fields at this point. I also realized that adding all the right fields
would make this global standard fairly specific to the EU requirements
(adding burden to other Geos).

As a consequence, I decided not to force the issue now and propose a
  - We push out the standard as is
  - We make its extensibility more explicit to foster continued
	 discussion of EU best practices (in the spec).
  - We start documenting those best practices as they evolve

This allows us to keep our timeline while permitting continued learning
during implementation.

The change to the spec that I propose is:
> The tracking status object can be extended by adding additional informational properties or by defining additional tracking status values. We require that extensions introduced SHOULD be defined and documented by a policy document referenced by the URL in the policy property field.
> Note: One goal of this extensibility is to enable variations by policy and the evolution of best practices for the emerging EU regulations.

If we all agree on this consensus, then I will not resolve the CfO by
forcing the issue and we can move ahead by introducing this change.

I am confident that all of you can live with this proposal in the spirit
of jointly finding the solution with least objections.

If not, please object and substantiate your objection by June 24.

I am also open to any other feedback (including minor/editorial changes
to the text I proposed).


PS: Attached is the draft CfP analysis (without conclusion).

Received on Sunday, 18 June 2017 10:31:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:36 UTC