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

Hi Shane,


thanks a lot! Good points and I agree with your desired way forward.

Hurdles that we need to overcome is to convince ourselves W3C that a
continuation is worthwhile. Devil's advocate points to overcome:
- Didnt TPWG promise to implement EU requirements in this REC?
- No new members joint; no sign of wide implmentation; why bother?
- We do not see strong industry pull (as measured in new members joining)?
- Why is it likely that 2018 is the year that clarity arises wrt EU
requirements...

The resulting questions are:
- How can we convince browsers to re-engage?
- How can we convince a broader user base to engage?
...

Let us discuss today what can be done.

btw: We also need to discuss how we obtain sufficient implementation
reports and interop tests to succesfully transition into REC. (I would
need to double-check the detailed requirements).


Regards,
matthias


On 04.11.2017 19:47, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> I thought Roy resolved this at the last meeting.  We've already
> submitted the current (non-purpose supported) version for CR.  Case closed.
> 
> Any work the group is doing now is on version 1.1 and net new CR.
> 
> I'm supportive of moving forward as quickly as possible to get to a new
> CR while pushing v1.0 CR to REC in parallel.  There won't be time for
> browsers to build anything in the next ~5 weeks before the end of the
> year anyway (removing 2.5 weeks for holidays).
> 
> As we now have an emerging view on ePR would it be possible to spin up
> the extension process now ahead of the end of the year in parallel as
> well?  If yes, then we have the following tracks:
> 
> - Move v1.0 RC to REC
> - Develop Purposes for v1.1 RC (then move to REC in early 2018)
> - Submit extension request for TPWG through mid-2018 (if not the full
> year as ePR becomes more real for the tech industry)
> 
> Fair?  Thoughts?
> 
> - Shane
> 
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Mike O'Neill
> <michael.oneill@baycloud.com <mailto:michael.oneill@baycloud.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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 <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>]
>     Sent: 04 November 2017 13:23
>     To: public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
>     (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
>     <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Shane
> 
> Shane Wiley
> VP, Privacy
> Oath: A Verizon Company

Received on Monday, 6 November 2017 07:46:56 UTC