Meeting minutes
<wseltzer>agenda+ W3C Process for chartering an Interest Group or Working Group, including charter scope, deliverables, advance notice, and Advisory Committee Review
<wseltzer> agenda+ Desired outcomes. What kind of group would be appropriate for the Success Criteria documents? What response might be anticipated from the Membership?
Wendy: Perhaps a brief set of introductions, thanks for coming to this meeting.
… It's a side meeting of the Web Adv BG to discuss the success criteria proposed by James.
[Wendy reviews agenda]
James: I think the overall objective is to decide what the future of the documents is.
Wendy: Correct. If you'd give an overview of the documents that would help.
Intro
James: I joined the group and wonder how we compare the documents.
<wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/blob/master/success-criteria.md
James: We have a lot of engineers but not privacy legal folks.
… So how do we compare them. Many issues are conceptual.
… There are limited resources all around.
… I see there are people reviewing Process 2020.
… Forming proposals as early as possible with the factors they consider would help make sure proposals are clearer.
… We've had about 20 people contribute to the documents so thanks on that
… We've had some people contribute anonymously for various reasons.
James: I've tried to take advice from the group and follow examples from other groups particularly the Privacy CG.
… We want to keep the work so that it's digestible.
… There are two documents we're looking at.
… Ultimately I think today we should decide if these are necessary and how do we evolve htem to make things clearer for everyone.
Wendy: Any questions on that introduction?
<krischapman> +present
Michael K: Everything I heard was in line except that I'm surprised about anonymous contributions.
… Especially since we've gone public with the minutes and considering recording, it seems odd to me.
James: I think the document be based on the outcome not the contributions.
… It's been from various people providing feedback.
… Right now we have several open comments on it. Clearly there is a wider debate needed to resolve them.
… About 2/3rds of the comments have been resolved.
… We've had a couple of side meetings. It all seems quite natural.
W3C Process for chartering an Interest Group or Working Group,
Wendy: I wanted to offer a brief discussion of W3C Process as we have many new participants.
<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Reports
Wendy: The Process document is long and involved. I want to describe key points many of which haven't changed as the Process has evolved.
… W3C produces technical reports, generally techincal standards, architecture, etc.
… Those go through a series of drafts and recommendations and reviews and are then published as a recommendation.
… The new Process maintains them and makes the intermediate publication esaier.
… Groups can also publish Notes which are often non-normative best practices or guideance.
<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#GAGeneral
Wendy: Some are self review questionaires (i.e. Privacy and Security}
Wendy: Related to that are the different types of groups in the Process.
… The Web Adv BG is for use case discussion and prototype discussions.
… We have Community Groups which can have specific charters like the WICG and Privacy CG.
… Both of those groups can set up their own processes within the W3C code of conduct and the IP Policy.
… The more formal groups in W3C are Interest Groups (IGs) and Working Groups (WGs).
… The WGs are chartered to produce technical reports and notes.
… Interest Groups don't produce normative deliverables but can bring people together adn produce notes.
… Similar to BGs but limited to W3C Members and they are formally Chartered by the Membership.
… Their reports can live in /TR space.
… IG and WG are guided by the Process consensus requirements. The final documents have to have consensus.
… To set up a WG or IG W3C hears interest, sends out an advance notice of work to the Membership to tell them we might be doing something and they can express interest.
… A Charter is created and sent out to the full Membership for review.
… Any objections that come up in that process are heard and reviewed by the Director normally through the W3C Management team.
… We work to gain consensus by working with the objectors.
… If there are still differences then the Director can either override the objection or support it and rule against the creation.
Wendy: If the group is created people are invited to join and work within the scope of the Charter.
… For these documents, they look to me that they are looking for principles and guidance that would be best addressed by an IG.
… So the question would be what would be the scope to bound that appropriately.
… What agreements would you want around the goals of the work going in.
… As well as definition of how people would work together to do that.
James: Thanks for that overview, it would be helpful to further delineate IGs from WGs.
Wendy: The WG is Chartered to deliver normative Technical Reports.
… For specifications they include Patent Commitments, making essential claims royalty free.
<krischapman> here's the W3C group definitions: https://www.w3.org/groups/
Wendy: As with all of the work at W3C we are voluntary consensus. We come up with a way to do X. They only bind people as far as people find them convincing.
… A lot of it is for things like integration but they have no binding power.
… The notes guide our horizontal review process.
… One phase that I didn't not is that as a technical report specification it's not only reviewed by the AC Reps it also goes through a broader horizontal review.
… Any comment given is one that the Director and W3C Team needs to evaluate and give a reasoned response.
… Sometimes IGs like PING produce reviews of other specifications that are considered as a spec moves forward.
Wendy: Where we're not talking about technical specs and IG can have a wider scope in their Charter and it doesn't require IP Commitments.
… Sometimes the Membership asks that if you're not producing Technical Specs why would you be a WG but we do have a couple (Accessibily E&O WG as example).
James: Thanks for the information. There may be a level of detail not necessary for this meeting.
… Maybe the PING model is the one to follow.
Desired outcomes. What kind of group would be appropriate for
James: Isn't the core question is their a desire to progress these and if there is do we need a Charter to do that.
Wendy: Yes, what is the shared desired outcome. How to describe that.
… Who wants to be a part of that development process.
James: I would be happy to lead that if there is a desire to do so.
Joshua: I would second that recommendation that we find a way to develop that document further.
… It's probably unfair to ask engineers to understand all the issues.
… That their attempts are opening other privacy holes.
<jrosewell> Hardeep +1 in the Zoom chat
Joshua: Having a group to do this would be beneficial.
Tom: I would add that I support his as well. I'd like to ask why would we not do this.
<kleber> For reference, here is the charter for the w3c's Privacy Interest Group (PING): https://www.w3.org/2019/09/privacy-ig-charter.html
Tom: We don't have to agree with the outcomes to make sure they are documented.
… It's helpful if we do that. I understand it's a big undertaking to do this.
… It's worth it because of the magnitude of this effort.
Kris: I'd like to comment on the timing. In my experience it takes a bit of time to do the setup, get a Charter, etc.
… I'm not against that but I wouldn't want everything else to pause while we're doing it.
… I think we should talk about timing and expectations.
Joshua: I think it would be good to hear that. I have no idea how long that process takes.
… That's probably useful feedback we can get.
… The second point Kris made is important. We're trying to build a web that last beyond the timelines that people are indicating.
… With one web at 2022 and beyond this coule help.
Wendy: To respond to Joshua's question on timing.
… The Process requires a 4-week review and before that it's how long to draft the Charter, afterwards is objection resolution.
… In theory it could be a month, but in practice it tends to be longer especially if there's contention of what the scope should be.
… We experienced some of that around PING. The AC Review process can be Member Confidential.
James: Thank you, just a couple of points. The W3C has been debating something in the public sphere (BLM) that went rather quickly and had lots of comments.
… I was pleased with how smoothly that worked.
… If there is a will to move this ahead I hope others will consider that.
Tom: I would add that the genesis of this is the Success Criteria document was to try to agree with what we want to achieve.
… They were seen by some as a conflict of other issues.
… I think a small group on the side could move it ahead. I don't think this is governing the rest of the process.
Jordan: I'm hearing support and I also support it.
… Since objection handling is a part of the process it would be good to hear if there are any known today.
Kris: I wouldn't frame this as an objection, but the main focus as Privacy from a User prospective vs. other ways, there are a lot of discussions elsewhere.
… There is a question of do you have enough representation from community.
<kleber> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/privacy-ig-charter.html
Mike K: I dropped a link earlier of the PING Charter. The thing I'll not is it starts with a Scope seciton.
… That might be the place where Objections might come from. Understanding the scope is paramount.
… To Kris' point about the right people I think that fits in the Scope section.
… There is the concern of how it's scope overlaps or intersects with other groups it's important to define those boundaries.
<wseltzer> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html
<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to share charter template draft
Wendy: We have a Charter Template that has all the elements to be included.
… Scope is critical as it guides people in determining participation.
… In the participation section (5 in the template) describes who needs to be involved to be successful.
… It describes the parts of the ecosystem that needs to be involved. What kind of testing might be required, etc.
… The template specifies how we gauge success of the groups reports.
… The next steps could be a group to fill out that template and discuss in pieces what that looks like.
James: This is helpful to understand what's needed. It's not a huge amout of text.
… The focus on Scope is important, with it being borne out of the BG we should decide if we want to bring that forward.
… In response to Kris, for wider stakeholder participation that seems to be an issue in other areas of W3C as well.
… The group would need to look at how to proactively gain that expansion.
Wendy: James this was inspired by your documents and to help figure out next steps. What else is needed?
James: There is a direction of thought that is supportive so what needs to happen next?
Wendy: Typically it's the W3C Team that sends out advanced notice and we do that with a draft Charter or outline of one.
… I would ask that you and those interested in working on this to take the template and start putting that together.
… I'm happy to keep working with you and explaining process.
… When you think it's worth sending out we'll get other eyes and questions.
… And this could give us more input.
<wseltzer> Alan: To be in an IG or WG, participants do need to join as W3C member
<wseltzer> ... and W3C bus dev is happy to help
<jrosewell> james@51degrees.com
James: I'm happy to coordinate a meeting to get this going. Contact me and we'll put the draft together.
Wendy: Thanks very much. From a Strategy prospective we like seeing Member initiated activities.
… You can work in the Charter Draft github or elsewhere. I'll leave it in your hands to get back to me.
Joshua: Since we had so many people join today, just asking if there are any objections here?
[crickets]
Oliver: It's my first time here and we're super interested in what's happened so far.
… It's all new to me so thanks for the insights. I'm super interested and will send James an e-mail.
… Providing some input from our side.
Kris: I was just going to comment that if folks are interested and not part of one of the other groups I'd suggest you join in the other PING and Privacy CG calls.
<wseltzer> W3C Privacy links
Jordan: In response to my own question, I would state some of my cynicism, in the area of Privacy I see more fractures that coming together.
… The platforms seems to be privatizing it vs. coming together on Standards.
… So the question is what room is there for this conversation. We need to emphasize the need for open standards.
Wendy: The call for open interoperative process' is part of the core values of W3C.
… We aim for our work to make it consistent and to enhance the Web Platform.
… Thanks for this conversation and the work to help building the platform.