Note: The respective changes are usually marked with their version number (V02, V03, ...).
||Initial version published for feedback
||First official version. Addresses feedback from DAA, IAB, et. al.
||Extended the deadline for completing the documentation of issues as announced by email.
This the proposed plan to move forward. It is based on the listening tour of
Jeff Jaffe, and our internal discussions with Jeff, W3C Staff, and our
The purpose of this plan is to serve as a basis for discussion and a
foundation for our "how to continue" poll that is detailed in a separate email.
This proposed plan constitutes our preferred way to continue.
V02 update:Based on the feedback received, we added the following rules to the plan:
- Accommodate the poll: To accomodate this concern we did not plan to close controversial issues before October 23 (2 weeks after the poll). Formally, this means that we will not issue a call for objections while the poll is still open.
- Single text rule: If there is only one proposed text/resolution and no alternative resolution is provided (after announcement and 14 days time), the chairs may determine this text as our consensus for an issue.
- Close in writing: Before closing an issue, a reminder
(e.g., the batch closing emails used in the past) is sent to our mailing
list. (Between this email and the closing, there are at least 14 calendar
days for review)
- Quality of issues: If an issue has no single change
proposal or does not satisfy the requirements put forward in this plan, the
issue will be closed after October 16 (V03 update: Extended to October 16 (except for ISSUE-25, 24, 5, 10, 170 that are under discussion for an extended period of time. For these issues, the original deadline of October 02 is retained.)).
The Editors' Draft (based on the June draft) represents the most promising
path toward consensus of the Working Group on the Tracking Compliance
The current Editors' Draft is only a starting point and changes to it are
needed. For example, we will need to address the currently open Issues, and in
some places, new or existing non-normative text could be inserted to provide
further guidance and clarification.
For several major contentious Issues in the group we have had sufficient
debate that it appears unlikely that we will achieve unanimity for these
- It is recognized that there are various reasons that some of these Issues
have not yet achieved consensus. For example, sometimes privacy could be
better protected if there were more advanced technologies available, but
these protections are too expensive to implement today.
- Thus, we are focused on the appropriate DNT solution for release in
2013-14 which we call DNT 1.0. As technology and user references evolve, we
fully expect that there will be further releases that address scenarios
that are not well addressed today.
- We do not re-open closed Issues unless new information or insight has
come up. Change proposals to the document will be entertained according to
the decision criteria listed below.
- The requirement for new information also holds for individual proposals
and counter-arguments within the scope of previous Calls for Objection.
i.e., if the same text is submitted without substantial changes, then the
arguments given in the Call for Objections are highly likely to still
We have created a schedule with dates that we feel give WG participants the
fair opportunity to react to their colleagues and are realistic in terms of
getting work done. Our focus is to create a schedule which we believe is
We prioritise the Compliance specification (our main challenge) over the TPE
spec and will postpone substantial work on the TPE spec until the Compliance
spec is ready for Last Call.
Close in writing: Before closing an issue, a reminder
(e.g., the batch closing emails used in the past) is sent to our mailing list.
(Between this email and the closing, there are at least 14 calendar days for
Phase 1: Finalising our Preparations (September 2013)
- To finalise this plan
- To document the complete list of issues against the Editors' Draft and
identify one or more draft text proposals for each issue.
- Finalise Plan: We are hereby sharing the Chair and Staff's proposed "Plan
to Get to Last Call" with the Working Group.
- Feedback will be accepted until September 9th.
- On the following Wednesday (11th or 18th) the Chair will publish a
revised and final Strategy to get to Last Call, incorporating input
from the WG.
- Publish Working Draft: In keeping with W3C Process, we should publish a
heartbeat Working Draft for the public. We propose to publish a snapshot of
the current Editors' Draft, with a status section highlighting the list of
change proposals and a notice that the text is not final nor a consensus of
decisions not yet made.
- Finalise Complete Set of Issues: By October 2nd, all Issues that WG
participants want to raise with the Editors' Draft have been entered into
the Issues Tracker. Currently open Issues and newly raised Issues should be
annotated with rationales and change proposals as described below.
- It is required that any Issue explain the rationale for the change.
The better rationale that is provided - the more likely that
the Issue will be accepted and cause a change to the spec.
- A valid rationale is to enhance privacy.
- A valid rationale is to reduce an overly burdensome cost
- A valid rationale is need to add more clarity to a portion of
the document which is unclear
- A valid rationale is need to add more specificity to a portion
of the document which is vague
- These are sample rationales, but there could be other rationales as
well (if well-documented).
- Each Issue, both those that currently exist and those newly proposed,
must have associated with it a "Change Proposal" - new proposed text
for the draft, together with rationale.
- If an already closed Issue is re-raised without substantial new
rationale and change proposal, it will remain closed.
- Any Issues raised after October 2nd will be treated as post-LC
Issues. We will create a separate product in the Tracker for vNext to
collect issues to be addressed during the Last Call period or in future
versions of the specifications.
- Our "Compliance June" product and issues list compiled by June 26th
may be sufficient, but this time period gives an additional opportunity
to gather group input on specific concerns. It should also give us
time, for example, to create specific issues with proposals out of
- NEW in V02: If an issue has no single change proposal or does not satisfy the
requirements put forward in this plan, the issue will be closed after
- NEW in V02: If there is only one proposed text/resolution and no alternative text is provided (after announcement and 14 days time), the chairs may choose this text as our consensus for an issue.
Phase 2: Closing the finalised set of Issues [Anticipated Start: October
Goals (for each issue):
- Finalise set of alternative change proposals to address the given issue
(alternatives can include "no change")
- Choose one of the alternatives
- This phase is expected to begin once additional chairing resources have
been identified, in order to promptly proceed through group decisions.
- We expect that by interleaving multiple issues at a time, one Issue can
be closed per week.
Resolution Procedure for each Issue:
- Announce the issue under consideration "Please submit any counter
proposals or revisions to change proposals for ISSUE-[issuenr] by next
week" and the deadline for submitting final change proposals.
- The group discusses and finalises change proposals. This step ensures
that each issue has one or several finalised change proposals for
resolution.The given Issue in tracker should have an associated Change
Proposal, together with rationale.
- The Chairs encourage dialog and compromise to encourage consensus in
- Additional Change Proposals or Counter-Proposals can be provided by
anyone in the Working Group.
- If no change proposals for this issue are provided by the deadline,
the Issue will be closed.
- At the deadline, the set of one or more alternative change proposals is
announced and are used as the input for a Working Group decision.
- Working Group Decision: The objective is that a consensus of the
Working Group will emerge. In this case, the Chairs document such a
consensus and the corresponding changes are added into the Editors'
- If there is no consensus, then the Chairs will issue a Call for
Objections. In this case, the resolution will be based on the Chairs'
assessment of the relative strength of the arguments. Working Group
decisions made through a Call for Objections are also documented in a
revision of the Editors' Draft. NEW in V02: After the call for objection has been
issued, we allow for 14 days of time for responses.
- The current Editors' Draft (formerly June Draft, with revisions) is our
starting point and we will first fine-tune this document for publication as
a Working Draft.
- Whenever an Issue has been resolved, the corresponding changes will be
included in the Editors' Draft.
- To give regular updates for the public, a snapshot of the Editors' Drafts
will be published as a Working Draft every other month (submission on the
first Tuesday of every month with an even number).
- Once all Issues have been processed according to these rules, the group
will publish a heartbeat Working Draft. The chairs will submit this draft
to the group, calling for a consensus to request publication as a Last Call
Working Draft. (Last Call documents are still Working Drafts; the Last Call
period is a chance to ask for wider public review.)
The Chairs may or may not schedule calls to discuss specific Issues and
Working Group decisions. As mentioned above, Chairs will use the Calls for
Objections process when they believe it is the best approach to resolve an