- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:46:23 +0100
- To: Shane M Wiley <wileys@oath.com>, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
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