Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference -- 24 Jul 2013

<trackbot> Date: 24 July 2013

<Chris_IAB> just joined via a private number

Zakim drop aacc

<David_MacMillan> No, I am 650-365

<Kim_Smouter> aajj is me

<BrianH> zakim 202.345 is BrianH

hober, did you just call in? aall

<yrlesru> jakim, aamm is yrlesru

<tlr> Scribe: npdoty

<scribe> scribenick: npdoty

schunter: have been very busy for the past few months, like to take this call to take stock
... curious about schunter chairing this call, tlr to fill in

tlr: Peter sends his regrets and regards, moving house; thanks from Peter to Matthias to taking over for the call today

schunter: agenda is rather short, received a lot of feedback on the decision on 215
... would like to get even more feedback on the call
... then, we proposed a path forward, would like to gather feedback on that as well
... then we have an item on audience measurement, and when to have the next call

<schunter> m

<laurengelman> I am here from an IP phone

Lmastria_DAA: did want to note on issue 215, want to go back and point out some factual inaccuracies on memo Peter put out, will detail in the next few days
... the DAA program is much more robust than laid out in that document
... looking to get those statements corrected, so that the Working Group knows what DAA program encompasses and doesn't

schunter: just asking for feedback on the agenda
... anything missing for the agenda?
... some feedback on the mailing list

WG Decision on 215

schunter: as a group we had to decide on working from the editors' draft and the DAA proposal, both were complete drafts addressing issues at hand, no clear consensus one way or another

<WileyS> Who promoted this to the editors draft? Could we please place a decision on the table to go back to the April "true" editors draft?

schunter: so we used the decision procedure we agreed upon a few f2f's ago
... look for the option with least substantive objection
... this time with two, but the procedure could work with 3 or 4 or 5

<Lmastria_DAA> Agree with WileyS

<Marc> Matthias, you are breaking up.

<Chris_IAB> q

schunter: chairs' job is to evaluate the objections from the group, all the inputs, choice is not easy

<aleecia> Matthias, it's impossible to understand you

<Chapell> Matthias - you are cutting out

<Chapell> I'm having trouble understanding you

<Ari> is anyone else having trouble with audio?

<WileyS> The group never agreed on the June Draft - this should be appropriately named the W3C Staff/Swire Draft

schunter: after these deliberations, propose to stick with the editors' draft/June draft, decision that we sent out, and compiled a document where we tried to detail the argument
... if there are errors, they should be corrected
... feeling was that the June draft was more likely to eventually get consensus from the group, even though there was support from both

<Walter> sound is not terribly good here either

<Marc> Was the intended basis for the co-chairs' decision "least strong objection?"

<Lmastria_DAA> The deliberations were premised on inaccuracies (at least as it relates to the DAA Program) regardless of the proposals. Therefore the results may be impacted

<jchester2> who is making the typing noise?

schunter: email sent out to the group

<aleecia> Marc, least strong objection is the metric

<WileyS> +q

<susanisrael> * I think if Matthias speaks more slowly as well as louder I think it will help.

<WileyS> -q

Chris_IAB: quite a few emails from both camps in the last week just trying to understand the process as it relates to W3C procedures

<aleecia> Having a draft replace the consensus draft, however, seems at best irregular.

Chris_IAB: not sure we can allow today's call to go on without a thorough discussion
... had agreed with setting a hard deadline on July 24th, also agreed in Sunnyvale, if to extend to have a discussion about that

<efelten> Chris_IAB, did you mean to say *July* 31 deadline?

Chris_IAB: July 24th, time to get information in for a July 31st deadline

<efelten> Thanks, I think you might have misspoken before...

<aleecia> rigo, i could very readily find worse in this… this is me being polite. :-)

schunter: process was called chairs' decision or chairs' assessment of consensus, Nick can send out a link

Chris_IAB: agreed in Sunnyvale that it was good to set a deadline

<rvaneijk> matthias , this is already the next agendaitem...

Chris_IAB: not what the stated procedure was going forward

tlr: appreciate if people were not talking over the chair

<WileyS> Thomas - much of this is captured in IRC notes

<WileyS> Okay - we'll wait until the next agenda item

<WileyS> +q

tlr: we have an agenda, this item is about decision on issue 215, next agenda item is proposed path forward

<dwainberg> tlr, the chair is very difficult to hear on today's call

tlr: let's not conflate

<johnsimpson> yes

rvaneijk: don't want to interrupt, but if industry is unhappy with the decision, next step is to file a formal objection, all in the guidelines for the process

<tlr> correct.

rvaneijk: just addressed the fact that there may be some factual errors, would that result in a new call for objections? as far as I'm concerned the question is closed

<Chris_IAB> Sorry, I may have misspoke: I meant to say "July 24th deadline" NOT "June 24th deadline" -- appologies

<johnsimpson> Are the factual errors relating to DAA/Industry proposal or to DAA Code?

schunter: if we misstate facts, that should be corrected; unlikely it leads to changing the decision because the decision is not based on one fact

<Lmastria_DAA> John, DAA Principles (aka Code)

schunter: if you don't like the decision, as said in the past, pinpoint updates to the text, or else do a formal objection

<rvaneijk> tnx.

<johnsimpson> Thanks, Lou. Can you point to them briefly.

<Lmastria_DAA> Matthias, it is not 1 fact...there are more

tlr: the chairs have discretion to re-open a decision if new information is available

<aleecia> if i might -- how are the DAA Principles relevant to the TPWG? many more folks will implement beyond DAA members, therefore we need to get the text into the standard, not import by reference

tlr: facts should be corrected, assessment is the basis of the decision

<rigo> Lmastria_DAA: please send them to the list and we can correct them if they are factual

<johnsimpson> How did the June draft become an "editors' draft'?

<rigo> which I consider good bug reporting

<Lmastria_DAA> Aleecia, the DAA Principles extend beyond the DAA Participants...this is one of the factual errors

<aleecia> um.

<Marc> "Chairs sentiment of the weakest objection from the group" -- that is the standard for the decions then?

Chapell: chairs referred to five criteria, if those are the criteria for decision making, why wasn't that shared with the group beforehand? that would be useful

<johnsimpson> What prompted the editors to adopt the draft?

<aleecia> Lou, I think you're saying that non-participants can follow the DAA Principles if they so choose, rather than claiming they're binding on non-members. Is that where you're going?

schunter: the main evaluation criteria are the inputs and the charter, in past meetings, described these five criteria

<Lmastria_DAA> Aleecia...no

<aleecia> ok

<aleecia> please clarify?

schunter: could have emphasized these five points, would be useful

<schunter> is my voice ok?

tlr: part of the framing of the path forward earlier this year, came out of Boston meeting

<Lmastria_DAA> we have and we will again

Chapell: disagree. agree they were mentioned in Boston where a percentage of WG was in attendance, but it came as a surprise to me that they're used as part of the decision

<schunter> lou?

Chapell: a number of shifts in draft text in the past 6 months, seems odd that they were chosen and not communicated prior

<aleecia> thank you, i'm trying to understand how DAA texts affect non-DAA members, any more than people not following the TPWG view of DNT would be bound by it

<Chris_IAB> Nick, can you please post a link to Issue 215?

Marc: can you clarify the standard applying in the decision for issue 215? was it the least weakest objections?

issue-215?

<trackbot> ISSUE-215 -- data hygiene approach / tracking of URL data and browsing activity -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/215

<aleecia> the objection that draws the least objection

<aleecia> er, the option that draws the least objection

<WileyS> "least strong objection"

tlr: the least strong objection

scribe: may have misspoken

<Marc> least strong or weakest objection is the standard

marc: can you walk us through the process for determining the least strong objection?

<aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/decision-policy.html

<WileyS> Many assumptions and references in the Memo of Explanation that the decision was pended on.

schunter: we tried to put the argument in the document, easier if you can go through the document and send specific feedback where you have questions

<rigo> no decision on editor

<rigo> no decision on editor's drafts, only on WD

WileyS: more fundamental question, curious how that supplanted the official editors' draft, never had a call for objections
... somehow supplanted, never considered the original editors' draft, many would argue that's a better starting place going forward, w3c staff and chairs draft which you call the June draft

tlr: happened on one of the calls shortly after that draft was proposed, the editors of the Compliance document agreed to adopt what was proposed as the June draft
... heard concern about losing non-normative text, concern we need to address

<Chris_IAB> I don't remember the decision that the editor's draft and the June draft are the same??

tlr: further note issue-214 in Tracker on June draft about pieces of text from the April 30 draft that should be included

<Chapell> I'm confused - I thought I saw an email from Roy about the adoption of the June draft as editor's draft. If Not authorized by Roy, which of the editors turned the June draft into the editors draft?

WileyS: IRC +1/-1 seemed even, on two alternative options, no call for objection

<johnsimpson> Would it be appropriate to ask the editors -- Justin and Heather -- why they opted to make the June draft the editors draft?

<aleecia> there's a difference between an editors' draft and a consensus working draft

WileyS: how do we formally get decision about considering the previous editors' draft on the table?

<aleecia> there can be multiple editors' drafts

schunter: sounds like the path forward?

WileyS: this is specifically to issue-215, only brought into consideration at the decision
... never included the actual editors' draft

<aleecia> +1 to everything Shane just said

WileyS: made a huge procedural miss in moving to w3c-staff/swire draft

<johnsimpson> I think the group needs consensus to publish a working draft. I fear an editors draft is whatever the editors say it is.

<Chapell> +1 to Shane

<Chris_IAB> tlr, can you please support your position with proof from the IRC notes? A link?

tlr: disagree, had the step of change proposals, have a relatively clear and comprehensible text, have a good sense of the issues against that draft
... I do believe we need to address the non-normative text going forward

<aleecia> v. throw away the hard work of the WG over the past 2 years

<fielding> Thomas, a working group decision by the chairs is supposed to evaluate the objections provided by the working group participants, not invent objections based on external speaking points. Jeff Chester made an objection based on the FTC principles, which is why they were brought in. That does not justify bringing in comments from the FTC and EU commissioners. It doesn't make a difference for me, but we should be clear about what is appropriate to publish in a

<fielding> clearly predetermined and prewritten opinion of the chairs that is supposed to weigh the opinions of the group.

tlr: I hear your suggesting doing away with the hard work in writing change proposals, gathering them together, and working through the call for objections, back to square one

<rigo> aleecia, TLR ack'ed your issue-214, so your 2 years are preserved IMHO

tlr: change proposals were against the June draft, suggest that we work through those, still have issue 214 on the table to bring back pieces from the previous editors' draft

schunter: important point is the benefit of the June draft is that we have a set of potential resolutions rather than 20 balls in the air at the same time
... the goal of this draft is not to say old work is wasted, just means we have a cleaner slate, now based on change proposals and old text try to create a good standard that is acceptable to the whole group
... not that something is written in the text it cannot be changed

<rigo> Shane, are you asking to reconsider issue-215?

WileyS: don't doubt the positive intent, process driven by staff and co-chairs, majority of the WG disagreeing with a decision
... when do you reconsider a move that you thought would be useful but that the group doesn't support

schunter: good point, will talk more with Thomas

<Chapell> ok - what's the resolution to Shane's question? Matthias has acknowledged that it is an important point and agreed to discuss wtih TLR

jmayer: procedural bar on amendments regarding issue-215, amendments related to the major points of the DAA proposal will not be re-considered
... don't think anyone outside that proposal suggested dropping the requirement on no-unique-id's

<WileyS> Jonathan - its in 214 so it should still be allowed

<aleecia> rigo, not really, no

jmayer: also on Shane's description of Yahoo proposal regarding de-identification

<aleecia> this is about amendments to the june draft, not about if the group continues

<Chapell> Jmayer - I had trouble understanding. Please type into IRC?

schunter: I think that's right as described, but best to have an understanding of what's best for the group

<fielding> Publication of a WD requires agreement of the working group. I know that no such agreement has been made because Aleecia very clearly objected, multiple times, and the chairs said we were not discussing that yet. The issue-215 decision did not mention WD publication and did not request objections on publication of the June draft as a WD.

aleecia: agree with Shane. in order to replace a working draft or publish a last call working draft, we need to have consensus
... rather than risk that, it makes more sense to check whether there is a preference for last working draft, go through the formal decision process to see which of these drafts we have a consensus on that

<fielding> note, we need agreement to publish a WD, not consensus

aleecia: formal objections evaluated too late to be of any use

<tlr> the TAG has no role in this, fwiw

aleecia: next step would be involving the TAG
... better would be to dot the i's/cross the t's, go through that exercise and make sure we do this correctly

<jmayer> Is Matthias going to answer that?

<aleecia> where "thanks a lot" means "you will not be ignored" :-(

<aleecia> er, now. heh, best typo of the day

Chapell: I'm trying to understand if the goal is consensus, why release decision to the New York Times before the Working Group

<jchester2> Perhaps Thomas knows.

schunter: we sent it over the list, I don't know the timing with the NYT, but could ask Peter

<WileyS> Great question - did Staff send this information to the NY Times prior to releasing the decision to the working group???

<Chris_IAB> was it not a Chair/W3C decision to release to NYTimes-- I think that's the question, right?

Chapell: peter hasn't been particularly responsive, if that's peter's decision, then I'll delay and ask him

tlr: the decision went to the mailing list and then was reported by the NYT
... not published by the NYT

<aleecia> to augment scribing: my proposal is this, we bring the "june draft" and the consensus draft to a decision. Anything less risks a great undoing later, and is disrespectful to the group members' time, and deeply challenges the very notion of consensus

<WileyS> HOURS slow???

<jchester2> Thomas, Didn't the W3C staff or co-chair contact reporters to offer them an advance embargoed copy of the decision?

<aleecia> Thomas, it's not an assertion, it's true

Chapell: blog post was before the mailing list message

tlr: we should move on

<jmayer> The NYT ran a draft of the decision. That suggests they had it prerelease. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/DNTJuly15.pdf

<Mike_Zaneis> The W3C leaked the Working Group decision to the New York Times at least 12 hours before the they announced the decision to the Working Group. Just clarifying the record.

<aleecia> and while this doesn't sound like it matters much on a substantive level, hearing from Matthias that the decision was in place and solid is lovely. I imagine that's all anyone needed to hear.

<jchester2> The WC3 staff structured the release of the document--reaching out to reporters and setting the terms for the release.

schunter: decision worked on by me and Peter, stable before sent to the group, review from W3C and Yianni

rigo: suggest we discuss this offline

<aleecia> What does "discuss offline" mean?

Path Forward

<rigo> aleecia: email with facts to me and Thomas

schunter: we sent around a text, what we believe is a potential path forward

<Chris_IAB> NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Alan's question was not adequately answered.

schunter: take a step back, our goal was to fix the editors' draft to a point where we could reach consensus and publish a Last Call by the end of July

<rigo> copy an archived list, if you want to be sure

<aleecia> facts were just presented: NYT had the decision before the group. Not sure why we care, but it's pretty clear that was the case.

schunter: and then relax for a while :)
... we didn't make that deadline, we have a draft, and a complete list of change proposals as text

<rigo> aleecia, I do not have evidence here and now and had no reason to go exploring

<aleecia> so Rigo, if you debate that, sure, do so. No need for email.

schunter: from my perspective, the path to continue is to take the draft and change proposals and go one-by-one, have an opportunity to be done in a finite time

<johnsimpson> What is the finite time that it will take to finish?

<jmayer> My question: The chairs' process, as I understand it, precludes any amendments unless 1) made before the deadline and 2) not related to the major points of the DAA Proposal. For example, going forward, we would not be able to drop the language limiting unique IDs, nor would we be able to consider Yahoo!'s de-identification proposal. Is that understanding correct?

schunter: since Peter will be absent for some time, could take a short break, two weeks without calls, and then come back and finish these documents
... would like to gather feedback

<rigo> jmayer, if you don't like, raise now

<jchester2> Mattias--can you answer Jonathan's question?

<WileyS> Jonathan, I made the amendment request outside of the industry proposal as well (with Rob) so its still in play there.

<aleecia> W3C happens in the open, and is transparent. I don't care if the NYT blew an embargo date. I do care when group questions are ignored and pushed to private email.

schunter: one feedback I've already recorded is that some people would prefer the old draft [April 30th]

<jchester2> W3C staff structured the release and framing of the decision.

schunter: currently we are in better shape than we have ever been before, because we have concrete change proposals in writing and can now process each of these alternatives

<Chapell> Aleecia: I care because it demonstrates that this was a predetermined and prewritten opinion of the chairs rather than an attempt at building consensus

<Chris_IAB> Mattias, I'd like to enter Roy's email on process into this discussion. I have not seen replies from co-chairs or staff to his email on process.

schunter: tried to summarize in this email

<johnsimpson> Are you saying no other amendments other than those already filed?

<aleecia> Alan: that's not at all my take.

schunter: the question is to gather feedback on the potential path forward, like it dislike it alternatives
... not a decision right now, but gather feedback, discuss with peter, come back to the group with a proposal

<WileyS> Feedback = options on the table for moving forward?

<aleecia> Alan: if the NYT had a decision before the comments came in, you'd have a point, but that does not appear to in any way be the case.

jmayer: re-ask prior question within the scope of path forward, process you're proposing going issue by issue working through amendments

<Chapell> Aleecia: then why not be open about it? I have lots of respct for Peter - I doubt he would release without full knowledge of w3c staff.

jmayer: would it include preclusion I sent to the mailing list, amendments that weren't timely, or amendments that were part of the DAA proposal (215)

<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to clarify one point

<Chapell> yet, w3C staff is denying it.

schunter: would start with the concrete text on the table, rather than opening to arbitrary proposals on the table

<aleecia> Alan: and this is my frustration. A quick "yah, the timing on that fell over by a few hours" was all we need to be done.done.done with this topic. Rather than pushing to private email.

jmayer: so you would consider it? or is it out of order?

tlr: if you look at the decision that was reached, and how it was described in call for change proposals, what we have before us is a set of change proposals
... an interlinked set from NAI and a few others was looked at first
... that proposal is, as such, off the table

<aleecia> Alan: at a substantive level, I think there is no actual issue here. The idea that a decision was in place but text to the group was still being word smithed, particularly with time zone issues, seems entirely plausible and reasonable.

tlr: Process is to go through the issues, some we have one or more texts,
... ask for counter-proposals and wordsmithing
... up to the discretion of the chairs on whether to re-open issues
... some judgment required

<WileyS> "With additional counter proposals"

tlr: maybe we're seeing convergence towards that in one or two cases
... that will take a little while, and a lot of work

<jchester2> Thomas--We need an answer to Jonathan's questions.

<Chapell> Aleecia: I'm not sure why the decision needed to be communicated to the press prior to the WG at all. Perhaps this is common in the W3C?

jmayer: didn't get an answer, is there estoppel at work regarding the decisions that have been made

tlr: the Working Group decision on ISSUE-215 stands

jmayer: so are those amendments prohibited in future?

<susanisrael> *Rigo, was that a serious comment?

<fielding> no, "those sorts" are not included in the objections considered.

<rvaneijk> if the answer is NO, than that is a serious problem

<johnsimpson> Can Shane propose the Red/Yellow/Green de-identification plan?

schunter: if on a particular issue we have multiple choices

<jmayer> "We will not revisit the choices presented in the DAA change proposal and rejected in this decision."

<Walter> rigo: it was not wise to frame it that way

<WileyS> John - Rob and I already proposed this outside of the Industry proposal

<jmayer> "Having considered the points above, we will not accept change proposals that are merely re-statements of these elements from the DAA proposal."

schunter: addressed already the package of proposals, wouldn't be fair to not consider perfecting amendments and change proposals

<aleecia> Alan: I don't have a problem with the co-chairs notifying press about major decisions in the TPWG. I'm not sure why that would be problematic. At a social level, sure, no one hear likes reading about decisions in the press rather than on our mailing list. But it is not substantive.

schunter: don't want to blacklist all DAA text because it was not the preference of the group

<WileyS> "merely re-statements" == means we need to provide more than a restatement

<tlr> correct

jmayer: seems to contradict the statement in the decision [about mere re-statements]

<aleecia> thomas, could you please not speak over a co-chair? :-)

tlr: may be cases where text in the DAA proposal overlaps with existing change proposals on other issues (which we were trying to be careful about)

jmayer: said you were dancing around

<WileyS> Jonathan - "merely re-statements" == means we need to provide more than a restatement

tlr: to take an example, clean-ups in the DAA proposal

jmayer: the point of this decision, as described to the NYT, included rejection of other paths, and what I'm hearing is that it's not a rejection of other paths

tlr: no, that's not what you're hearing, won't accept re-statements of those substantive points
... suggest moving into the queue

fielding: the path you set forward, didn't seem to include calling for a WD publication

<tlr> +1

fielding: if another round, would like to have another WD publication, in dated space, that we can refer to publicly

<jmayer> I honestly have no idea whether DAA-like text will receive consideration going forward. In which case... what was the point of that "decision"

<jmayer> ?

fielding: realize it may be difficult to publish a Working Draft, but not an excuse for not doing so
... respect the decision to continue working on the June change proposals, should not until we have another Working Draft

<aleecia> of note: Roy's proposal to publish a WD addresses my concerns from the prior agenda item

tlr: agree that publishing the editors' draft as a next WD is logical

<rvaneijk> the logical next step is to assess ehether to proceed or nor: p. 9 + p. 25 if the explanatory memorandum !

tlr: past three months, about to reach slow season, appropriate to publish editors' draft as a working draft, with all the warnings

<aleecia> if we have consensus to do so, that is an acceptable way to address the issues Shane and i raised (acceptable to me, not necessarily to Shane :-)

schunter: that was to be part of the agenda

<Lmastria_DAA> not sure what zakim is asking me

schunter: we are aware there are people who would prefer the old draft, like to publish the current editors' draft as a Working Draft
... publicly state this is an important document that is currently under consideration

<aleecia> could we finish the queue please

<fielding> FTR, I object to publishing the WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft

<aleecia> on the prior topic?

<rvaneijk> that may be important, but today we need to address whether to proceed first

<jmayer> I suspect the group may not support publishing the June Draft as a Working Draft.

schunter: continue with discussion/feedback on path forward, and then revisit WD publication

<aleecia> that's fine, then we know that

<fielding> I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition, or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed.

dwainberg: probably stating the obvious, so much ambiguity, confusion and mistrust about process, hard to move forward without getting crystal clear about the process and adopting documents and changes to documents

<Lmastria_DAA> dwainberg +1

<WileyS> +1 to what David just said - everyone in the working group (both sides) needs to have confidence on the process going forward.

<rvaneijk> Explenatory memorandum: p.9: Today’s decision seeks to summarize the chairs’ views of the process on key open issues in the compliance specification, in order to assist in that assessment. p.25: Before the end of July, the group will discuss whether and how to proceed in light of the current Last Call deadline scheduled for the end of July.

dwainberg: one specific example assured we would not be surprised by issues being closed, wouldn't have to continue re-raising issues repeatedly
... not what has happened

<aleecia> +1 to David on re-raising objections

<Walter> rvaneijk: that is a long and malformed paste

dwainberg: need faith that the process is going to be fair

<Walter> +1 on dwainberg

schunter: an important piece of homework for peter and I to reclarify the process

<Chapell> +1 to Dwainberg

<Ari> +1 wainberg

schunter: as a formal position for the Last Call document is that issues are closed, a WG decision, have to be as clear as possible

<Chris_IAB> +1 to Dwainberg-- couldn't agree more that we are all confused and can't move forward in good faith until we understand

<jchester2> John: Breaking up. Didnt hear.

johnsimpson: did note on the agenda that we had to publish the ED as a WD, my sense is that we do not have consensus to do so

<rigo> john, publication of WD needs a WG decision

johnsimpson: is there an estimate as to how long it would take us if we go down this path? 25 outstanding issues, one per week, would be 25 weeks
... that's particularly optimistic

<jchester2> Is John only breaking up for me?

johnsimpson: serious doubts about this group, spending calls talking about process instead of substance, to getting to the point to publish

<jmayer> As best I can tell, the answer to most questions is one of: a) need to think it through later, b) take it up in private conversations, or c) repeat previous position at length. That's quite frustrating.

johnsimpson: remind we need to have an affirmative decision to move forward, ask when to poll the group on that

schunter: good point, I like your goal of closing 22 issues in 22 weeks

<jackhobaugh> Matthias, you didn't answer John's question.

aleecia: hi matthias, I feel like we're talking past each other more than is productive, to be concrete: johnsimpson just asked a question about needing an affirmative decision to move forward or not

<rvaneijk> aleecia +1, we need to address the affirmative decision of the group to continue

aleecia: are you looking today for an affirmative decision from the group to continue?

<JC> Does that mean LC is postponed?

schunter: not, to have a chance to consider options

<fielding> waffles with breakfast?

<schunter> ?

<jackhobaugh> Procedures can't change from week to week.

<susanisrael> So are we basically saying that the affirmative decision to move forward may happen, but if so will happen at a later date due to personal obligations?

aleecia: I have heard that decision to move forward hinged on the idea of making an affirmative decision to move forward at the end at Sunnyvale

<rvaneijk> the date is in the explenatory memorandum !!!

<Chris_IAB> Yes, that was exactly the decision made in Sunnyvale

Lmastria_DAA: heard that it was the 24th, but maybe not at Sunnyvale

<tlr> text from sunnyvale: "At the close of the Face-to-Face Meeting on May 6-8, 2013 in Sunnyvale, the Tracking Protection Working Group has consensus that there was sufficient progress during the meeting to merit moving ahead with the Do Not Track standard, toward the July 2013 Last Call deadline."

<Chris_IAB> the date was in the memo, as Rob points out

<jmayer> Aleecia, it was "baked into" the chairs' decision to use the June Draft.

<dan_auerbach> that's my recollection from Sunnyvale, but I don't remember the exact text

<jchester2> Rob has shown us the text. Mattias and Thomas--can you please address?

<dan_auerbach> or speech

<rvaneijk> aleecia: YES

<Chris_IAB> tlr, you are saying we did not discuss deadlines in Sunnyvale?!

aleecia: if that was privately, then that's different; but was it a group decision at Sunnyvale to not continue after July? minuted too lightly

tlr: result was accepting the consensus action summary

<fielding> To clarify, I am all for a "break", preferably until the end of August, if the first thing we make a decision on at the end of that break is a WD publication and/or closure of the WG.

[pasted in by tlr]

<jmayer> Previous commitments by the chairs to the deadline: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0508.html

tlr: that text was the documented result from that meeting

<susanisrael> Did we also not take a vote on one of the calls as to whether we would vote on July 24?

<johnsimpson> There have been repeated comments that we would need an affirmative decision of the group to work past that.

aleecia: very helpful, exactly the form of answer

<rvaneijk> minutes Juli 10: peterswire: What I've said before is that we need an affirmative decision by the group about whether to continue after July, and the way to do that is to have input on this fork in the road.

<rigo> aleecia++

aleecia: text doesn't have such affirmative decision language, but some people in the group believe it is

<rvaneijk> minutes Juni 19: peterswire: that's consistent with the idea of evaluating July 24. ... i hope we work well and effectively and can get to last call but recognize it's not inevitable.

<johnsimpson> There have been repeated statements that we need an affirmative decision

<jchester2> Thomas--Please see what Rob placed in IRC regarding what Peter said--which is also what I recall.

schunter: the formal answer is that it may not be a formal part of the minutes, but the group doesn't continue without participation (voting with your feet)

tlr: [reading from path forward email] "clear and well-defined work plan toward Last Call"

<Lmastria_DAA> susanisrael +1...that's what I recall

tlr: assessment from chairs that we have a basis for going forward

<rvaneijk> Thomas, that is your assessment, not a reading of the room..

<jmayer> I would like to respond to this.

<jmayer> Since I sent a response to the mailing list.

<Chapell> TLR: the chairs assessment should have some basis in reality

tlr: in Sunnyvale we rightly said we needed a path forward, and we've done a lot of work to get there

<johnsimpson> HOW LONG WILL THE PATH FORWARD TAKE?

<Chris_IAB> susanisrael, you should get on the q to state your point regarding the vote

aleecia: take peter's comments about making a decision in July as dicta rather than normative

<rvaneijk> for the minutes, Matthas answered that question with a YES

aleecia: thanks for specific answers, whether agreed upon or not

Walter: appears from the answer we just received, a third option, but not clear to me what that third option would be

<johnsimpson> not hearing...

<jackhobaugh> Isn't W3C concerned that no one in your working group understands the process or procedures used here?

<susanisrael> I believe that June 19 was the call on which we voted on whether to have a deadline

Walter: I understand from the explanatory memo that the Sunnyvale consensus was that we would have a Last Call document or enough information to make a decision of whether to complete this process or not

<rvaneijk> Walter is referring to page 9 of the explenatory memorandum

Walter: don't believe we have enough clarity to make that decision or not

<rigo> I think we failed to get sufficient clarity on whether we will be able to continue...

tlr: consensus action summary was decision, interpreting comments since then

<jackhobaugh> We don't have clarity on anything.

tlr: chairs memo yesterday was that based on the work that took place, we can move forward

<rigo> jackhobaugh: I hope we will create that clarity after the break MTS suggests

tlr: detailed project planning (as asked by johnsimpson in IRC, rightly) regarding timing and prioritization

<aleecia> To summarize what I believe has happened: (a) in sunnyvale there was an agreement to continue working, (b) the "deadline" of end of July was aspirational, not binding, as reflected in the text of the decision in sunnyvale.

<susanisrael> http://www.w3.org/2013/06/19-dnt-minutes

tlr: with the information we have, editors' draft, decision on 215, shrinking of decision space regarding change proposals, we can move forward

<johnsimpson> I do not see how we can see can say we have identified a path forward

tlr: chairs should go come up with detailed project plan

<rigo> +1 Aleecia, this would be my interpretation too

Walter: not sure we have information enough to go forward

<rigo> Walter: I have doubt we have enough information to move forward

<aleecia> We have just had a co-chair invite us all to quit if we like, but there is no plan to determine if we currently have consensus to continue.

<Walter> npdoty: I doubt that there is consensus in this working group on having enough information to go forward

<Chapell> The chairs are selectively interpreting so many of the data points that its difficult for those of us who are not on the inside to understand what happened, why, and how we can move forward

<Walter> in a credible way

schunter: have issue-214, we could acknowledge that we go back to past working draft
... editors' draft does not have consensus of the working group
... if we publish the Working Draft, we should say so (not that it represents consensus from all, but that it's text and has a list of change proposals)

jmayer: 1) affirmative decision; 2) schunter's process
... I took the Sunnyvale decision to be one that assumed a firm July deadline
... on the June 19th call, quoting from Peter on minutes, need an affirmative decision on whether to proceed

<jchester2> +1, Jonathan's quoting from Peter re: the need for July decision point.

jmayer: also on July 10th and explanatory memo

<johnsimpson> +1 Jonathan.

<Walter> Chapell: minus the attacks on the chairs I pretty much agree on being very confused

jmayer: seems now there may be an implicit decision otherwise, I find that unacceptable, going against a clear process that we had an understanding of before

<aleecia> (for scribing, jmayer is going through point by point places where Peter said we needed an affirmative decision to continue.)

jmayer: not sure what W3C process is regarding that
... 2) we don't know now which commitments from the chair are firm and which aren't

<Chapell> This cuts at my question re: process. The WG is somehow supposed to KNOW what Peter's criteria were for his decision. Conversely, the WG is also supposed to KNOW not to take Peter's previous committment to end of july deadline

<Chapell> +1 Jmayer

jmayer: haven't answered johnsimpson question about how long it will take, or my question regarding amendments allowed, or Aleecia regarding past WD

<aleecia> Alan: as per the formal decision process, the co-chairs owe the group a formal, written response on the last decision.

jmayer: if we don't have that clarity, don't know how we can continue

<susanisrael> In posting a link to June 19 minutes, i was not expressing an opinion about the meaning of the discussion on June 19, but merely pointing to where I thought we discussed it.

<tlr> zaki, mute me

tlr: issue-214 is in the Tracker; have been discussing johnsimpson's question; staff isn't working 24 hours, but is working on a project plan

<johnsimpson> It is not a disgrace to realize you cannot reach agreement. If that is the case, it is the honorable thing to do.

<aleecia> Alan: Peter acknowledged that on the last call, so it appears it is not forgotten

<jmayer> My first point: the chairs again and again reaffirmed that a deadline extension would require an "affirmative decision." The chairs have now departed from that process.

dan_auerbach_: appreciate all the work the chairs have done, agree you're working very hard, share concerns about no longer needing an affirmative decision to go forward
... sentiment in the room right now is different from that of the chairs

<rigo> danA: want a straw-poll

dan_auerbach_: is there an objection to a vote, regardless of how the vote is interpreted

<jmayer> My second point: 1) we don't know what commitments are firm or mere "dicta", 2) we don't know how long this path forward is supposed to take, 3) we don't know what amendments are in order, 4) we don't know which base text we're using (ISSUE-214)

<Walter> I object to taking a break

<Walter> that in itself is an affirmative decission

<Walter> decision

<jmayer> This is not a clear path forward. This is the absence of a clear path forward.

<jmayer> I think a straw poll would be valuable here.

schunter: plan not clear enough to taking a vote/poll, want to take a break, and come back

<Walter> +1

<johnsimpson> Matthias, That is NOT what we agreed

<jchester2> Let's do a vote for the record. There is a sense that the Co-Chairs and WC3 staff do not have the confidence of the group.

dan_auerbach_: July deadline will have passed, for WG members that do not believe it's a legitimate process after July that's a problem

<Walter> It is not uncommon for a group then to take an explicit decision on that

<jchester2> Does the Chair and Thomas refuse to hold a straw poll vote?

<johnsimpson> So when will the next deadline be? July 2014?

schunter: deadline in the charter, but not unusual to change LC publication deadlines

<jmayer> Could we just have a straw poll in IRC?

<yrlesru> A vote without a clear proposal makes no sense. And votes seem to be not preferred by W3C procedures?

schunter: don't see a way to get consensus to publish a LC, even if we work 24 hours

<jmayer> Straw polls are a routine part of W3C procedure.

rigo: vote is far too black and white for me

<jmayer> Proposed question: "Does the group agree to extend the July deadline?"

rigo: chairs' assessment is that they want to base their way forward on the June draft

<jchester2> Would Tim Berners-Lee agree that the members of the group shouldn't be asked their opinion?

rigo: deadline in this room about 31 July precludes everything, with Aleecia agree that it was aspirational

<tlr> jeff, we're listening to your opinion right now.

<aleecia> while i find it exceedingly unwise, the co-chair is entirely empowered to not hold a straw poll vote.

<fielding> fwiw, the LC deadline is something the chairs negotiate with the W3C, not something we get to play with … the deadlines that Peter mentioned were more personal in nature … regardless, taking a break for a few weeks and *then* taking a vote on the way forward is effectively the same as making a decision now.

<jchester2> Thomas--I am glad you have your sense of humor still intact!

<Walter> hearing is not the same as listening

rigo: we will listen to you, won't debate endlessly, W3C process is that even if there is dissent you move forward

<jchester2> +q

<Walter> fielding: that is my problem exactly

<yrlesru> Does the group extend the LC vote from July 24 to YYYYMMDD?

rigo: the deadline, and this affirmative thing, is not to preclude us from going forward

<johnsimpson> Should Jonathan's question "Should we continue" be opened as an issue?

Chapell: I want to understand, it sounds like the chairs want to punt for 2 or 3 weeks, implicit a cooling off period, do we have commitment from the chairs to have a discussion about moving forward before returning to the substance?

<jmayer> A decision? Or just a discussion?

<aleecia> john: while any member can open an issue at any time, the chairs do not need to take it up

tlr: a discussion would be a fine thing

Chapell: so there would be a go/no-go vote?

<johnsimpson> Can we open as a formal issue: Should we continue?

<jchester2> -q

<WileyS> In summary, there is no opportunity for a go/no-go vote. That path is not supported by the W3C Staff and Co-Chairs.

schunter: at some point we have to agree, or get a majority of stakeholders to move forward, a Working Group consisting of only two chairs doesn't make sense

<fielding> Do we have a commitment from the W3C staff that they won't make any more (assinine) comments to the press about our progress until the group is given a chance to determine its own progress?

<aleecia> Shane, that is what I hear as well

schunter: decision of the stakeholders, do they support this path forward? or have an alternative path forward? if we don't have a path forward would work for multiple stakeholders, then it doesn't work

<jmayer> Matthias has twice now suggested the way to disagree is to exit the group. That's more than a little concerning.

<aleecia> However, we do need a consensus agreement to publish another WD

schunter: don't have to agree among all members, a path forward not supported by anyone is a non-starter

<Walter> WileyS: would you support such a vote?

<tlr> fielding, "asinine"? Excuse me?

<johnsimpson> Do we need agreement to publish WD?

<aleecia> As a result, we are going to effectively make the WD vote a vote on continuing or not

<fielding> Do you need me to quote the relevant article, Thomas?

schunter: homework for the chairs to detail a path forward

dwainberg: will the path forward include a clear process for making decisions?

<aleecia> If we all vote down the June draft, what then?

dwainberg: things have obviously not been clear up to date

<aleecia> Presumably we roll back to the current consensus draft as published.

<rigo> aleecia: we would continue with the initial draft

schunter: our intent is to have a clear path forward, and procedures for handling remaining steps

<aleecia> thanks Rigo

<aleecia> so even that is not a go / no go, though it will serve as a rough proxy

dwainberg: hope and expect the group would have an opportunity to approve or decide to move forward with that process

<WileyS> Call should be ending now, correct?

<johnsimpson> What if there is no real path forward?

<aleecia> nothing ever ends :-)

schunter: vote would be too black and white, but consider alternatives, and find a path forward that would work for stakeholders in the group

<rigo> aleecia, only the AC and the Director have go/no-go authority AFAIK, but may be wrong

schunter: if we're certain that this is impossible, we can consider failure

<aleecia> Rigo, *thank you*. I have been asking this question for well over a year to no avail.

<johnsimpson> There have been no progress in resolving substantive issues.

<rigo> aleecia: not me :)

schunter: very encouraged based on progress in the past weeks,

<Walter> Indeed, and the process is as clear as mud now

<aleecia> that's fine, i'm just trying to figure out what is the actual process.

<rigo> npdoty++ for scribing

<rigo> this was difficult

rvaneijk: want to make a closing remark, our task today was to assess whether to proceed and how; but we've turned that the other way around

<aleecia> i understand "director" is delegated at times. who is the AC?

<johnsimpson> e just kicking things down the road

rvaneijk: assess whether there are enough parties in the room that do want to continue
... deferring the discussion that we should have had today

<aleecia> we're not deferring it. it's not going to happen at all

<rigo> aleecia: Advisory Committee: The representation of all the members

<jmayer> No Rob, we're deferring a discussion. Not a decision. There is no decision by the group.

<Lmastria_DAA> +1 rvaneijk

schunter: could say it that way, decision is postponed

<johnsimpson> We're never going to have the discussion on whether we should continue

<jchester2> Thank you Mattias.

schunter: felt a little bit like being in the hot seat, but that's fair enough
... last point on the agenda is publishing a snapshot Working Draft

<aleecia> We're basically all being dared to quit. Very interesting structure.

<Walter> aleecia: it is becoming more tempting by the day

<johnsimpson> June draft should not be a Working draft unless you include all change proposals, and have notes to open issues

<rvaneijk> Matthias, please mail all the decisions made during this call to the list.

<jmayer> Matthias, are you suggesting a straw poll on the June Draft as a Working Draft?

schunter: I'm proposing to take the editors' draft and publish as a Working Draft, with a notice of change proposals

<aleecia> wait, now?

<jmayer> -1

schunter: proposal would be to take this editors' draft, put it out to the public

<fielding> I object to publishing the WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft; I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition, or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed.

<Chapell> I object

<johnsimpson> object object

<aleecia> objection: it's 10:34

<aleecia> the call is over

<Chapell> moreover, many WG members have left the call

<tlr> note that the editor's draft includes links to the issues

<aleecia> this would need to be announced in advance

<robsherman> Matthias, I still don't feel like I understand the significance of the Editors Draft -> Working Draft shift, since both of the documents are presently available to the public. What is the implication of "Working Draft" status?

johnsimpson: seems that the document is not in shape to go out (as WD) as such

<aleecia> not sprung upon us after the call ends

<rigo> robsherman: some stability

johnsimpson: should have notes as references to all the issues/changes

<Chapell> Matthias: whas publication announced as part of today's agenda?

<dan_auerbach_> it is after 10:30 and many participants have dropped off

<efelten> robsherman, I think the difference is that WD means the group has approved publishing it as a WD.

schunter: would it be sufficient to have a statement detailing all the changes we have to do?

<aleecia> it means we have consensus to publish the draft, more to the point

johnsimpson: the last public Working Draft document did just that [include open issues]

<Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to make a procedural point

<Walter> which I find highly disingenuous

<Chapell> +1 to JohnSimpson

johnsimpson: this would present to the world a consensus that does not exist

<jchester2> +1, John's view.

<rvaneijk> schunter, I think you should wait until the path forward is clear.

<aleecia> right now we do not have consensus around making the "editor's draft" into a published WD, and that's what would differ

<jchester2> I think most are still on IRC

tlr: some people dropped off the call after 90 minutes without coming back to publishing the Working Draft
... suggest finishing up [not making decisions]

<Marc> Also, what is the deadline for formal objections on the co-chairs's decision?

<aleecia> +1 thank you tlr

<Chapell> +1 to TLR

Chris_IAB: but about the scheduling, I'm concerned about aug 14

tlr: fine to get scheduling feedback now, just not group decision

<rigo> aleecia, was on the Q

Chris_IAB: my point was, regarding that timing, a lot of people in industry on vacation through all of August

<aleecia> believe it - was just checking length

Chris_IAB: DC on break during that time

<aleecia> have another call after this, etc

<fielding> end of August, please, so resume Sep 4

Chris_IAB: suggest we pick back up the 1st of September, August a horrible month for having substantive discussions

<susanisrael> +1 to resuming in September

<ChrisPedigoOPA> +1 to no calls in August

<aleecia> +1 to sept

<rigo> we could try to improve the draft in the meantime

schunter: believe it's a good point, will discuss it with staff

<aleecia> easy enough to do a doodle poll to see who's around

<aleecia> hint, hint :-)

tlr: can figure out scheduling offline, appreciate raising the point

Chris_IAB: we're taking this break because of someone's personal plans/vacation, a lot of people do

schunter: proposal would be September 4 (first Wednesday)

<fielding> labor day is Sep 2

<ChrisPedigoOPA> Labor Day is Sept 2

<WileyS> Yes - Sep 4th would be the next meeting if we break for August

schunter: send around either a Doodle or proposal
... thanks everybody for this interesting call, and your hard work over the past month, exploding mailing lists

<tlr> I'll send a Doodle poll in a moment

<jmayer> What clear process?

schunter: hope we come up with a good and detailed proposal and clear process

<WileyS> So what is the break? 2 weeks or 4 weeks?

<aleecia> unknown, Shane

schunter: our first break :) we all have earned it

<yrlesru> quit

<jchester2> Can we be sent what the clear process will be, please?

schunter: thanks a lot everybody, call is adjourned.

<WileyS> Help - need clarity on length of break.

<aleecia> shane, will be on mailing list

- DRAFT -

Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference

24 Jul 2013

Attendees

Contents

WG Decision on 215

Path Forward

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output