RE: Options for the future of the TPWG - Discussion needed

I agree with all that, i.e. we go with what we have for Rec 1.0, and in parallel carry on with Rec 1.1 (with Rec 1.0 getting precedence if there is a conflict). 

There seems to be some interest in pursuing the DNT extension which could help getting other companies to get involved, or re-engage, so the 2 paths are complementary. I see nothing that needs to be removed from Rec 1.0, we are just talking about adding detail to the extensible feature already defined e.g. the TSR,  the DNT header extension and a new parameter for the API. 

Mike
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] 
Sent: 04 November 2017 13:23
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Options for the future of the TPWG - Discussion needed

Dear TPWG,


just as a context, here are my current believes on the politics around
our WG.

Some points to consider:
- We got an extension of our charter until end of 2017
- W3C may not be willing to extend again unless there is strong evidence
of renewed interest (e.g. new members joining)
- We should barely be able to push the current spec into the REC final state
- If we address new issues, it will cause a delay that will put the REC
at risk.
- If we do not address the new issues, the standard may not be adopted
anyway.
- While we may try an educated guess on best practices for the EU (e.g.
adding purposes),
  the true best practices in the EU will evolve in 2018 (or even later).
  [i.e. whatever we produce now may or may not be future-proof]

The ideal scenario I see is:
- We publish the current version as REC 1.0 to put a stake in the ground
and meet the deadlines in our charter
- We get new members on board to convince W3C that there is renewed interest
- We continue to improve our standard and shape the EU best practices
- We work towards a REC 1.1 in 2018 where we are confident
  that the emerging EU best practices are optimally supported.

This requires us to find a sufficient number of members and implementers
who re-engage
and say "yes, we believe that the TPE is a great technical means to help
compliance in the EU".

Other options (less favourable options) are:
- We publish the current draft as REC and stop/pause
- We add the purposes ASAP, publish another CR, and try to survive
  long enough to get the corresponding REC out.

In any case, pushing the current release out as-is seems to be the
preferred choice. Based on this version, we can then implement/design
extensions and evolve best practices. Once they get stable, we have
confidence how exactly an update should look like.

What do you think? Any input/feedback is welcome!


Regards,
matthias

Received on Saturday, 4 November 2017 14:33:40 UTC