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

Dear Matthias,
Dear all,

I can live with the proposed compromise proposal, amended by Mike. The compliance array is a better place to point to normative documents.

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 described by a document referenced by a URL in the compliance array property.
Note: One goal of this extensibility is to enable variations by policy and the evolution of best practices for the emerging EU regulations.

Regards,
Rob


-----Original message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
Sent: Sunday, June 18 2017, 4:55 pm
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfO on Issue 22 - Strong objections to both options ;-(


Hi Mike,


thanks a lot for the feedback and the endorsement.

I actually agree that the compliance field is the better place for what
I intended (sorry: my TPE skills got a bit rusty over the years ;-)


Regards,
matthias


On 18.06.2017 16:00, Mike O'Neill wrote:
> I think the compliance array is a more suitable place. The extensions would naturally fit a European compliance document and the compliance property was designed for that. Also "documented by a document" is a bit circular.
> 
> Otherwise I (reluctantly) agree with the change to process and this consensus text.
> 
> So:
> 
> 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 described by a document referenced by a URL in the compliance array property.  
> Note: One goal of this extensibility is to enable variations by policy and the evolution of best practices for the emerging EU regulations.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org> ] 
> Sent: 18 June 2017 11:28
> To: public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> 
> Subject: CfO on Issue 22 - Strong objections to both options ;-(
> 
> 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

> fields.
> 
> 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
> compromise:
>   - 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).
> 
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> PS: Attached is the draft CfP analysis (without conclusion).
> 
>