- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:58:10 -0700
- To: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Matthias I’m not sure we’re ready for a CfO. I for one am trying not to find the best proposal for a problem among a set of competing proposals to solve an issue, but to understand what the issue statement is. Rob and Shane seem to think it’s for ‘transparency’ but I don’t understand ‘of what’. > On May 18, 2017, at 9:28 , Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > unfortunately, our agreement seems to have unraveled. As a consequence, > I now would like move to a Call for Objection on Issue 22. > Note that this puts us on a defined timeline for completion (while we > still have 2 weeks to converge on a single consensus proposal). > > The procedure is described here (apologies that it is a bit dated): > https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/1309-plan.html > > The general idea is: > Until Week 1: (this call): > - We freeze the list of texts that are used as alternatives (should be > smaller than the initial list) > Until Week 2: May 29. > - Anyone in the group can submit "substantiated objections" (no need to > have voting right). > Until Week 3: June 05 > - The chairs determine consensus as described in the document. > > So far, I have recently seen 2 Text Alternatives: > 1. otherParties array (by Rob): Machine-readable list of third parties > for transparency purposes only > 2. otherParties as URL that points to some non-machine-readable page > that describes the third parties (by Shane). > > Alternatives that I heard and that I would like to drop (unless someone > sustains support): > - No change at all (by Shane; Probably superseded by (2))? > - Combinations with some API to get some additional information on what > third parties did not receive DNT;0 even thoug a site-wide exception exists. > > On Monday, I would like to finalize a list of text proposals that go > into the CfO (default is those two). > > Regards, > matthias > > > Dave Singer singer@mac.com
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2017 20:58:45 UTC