14:54:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #web-adv
14:54:55 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/05/11-web-adv-irc
14:54:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Member
14:54:59 <Zakim> Meeting: Improving Web Advertising BG
14:55:01 <wseltzer> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-adv/2021May/0003.html
14:55:05 <wseltzer> zakim, clear agenda
14:55:05 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:55:13 <Karen> Chair: Wendy Seltzer
14:55:13 <Karen> Scribe: Karen Myers
14:55:25 <wseltzer> agenda+ Agenda-curation, introductions
14:55:25 <wseltzer> agenda+ Issues and Pull Requests in the web-adv repo https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/issues https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/pulls
14:55:28 <wseltzer> agenda+ Dashboard highlights? https://w3c.github.io/web-advertising/dashboard/
14:55:31 <wseltzer> agenda+ AOB
14:55:32 <wseltzer> queue=
14:55:36 <wseltzer> present=
14:57:49 <bmay> bmay has joined #web-adv
14:58:01 <bmay> present+
14:58:03 <benhum> benhum has joined #web-adv
14:58:13 <GarrettJohnson> GarrettJohnson has joined #web-adv
14:58:17 <GarrettJohnson> present+
14:58:18 <kris_chapman> present+
14:59:04 <lbasdevant> lbasdevant has joined #web-adv
14:59:06 <benhum> present+
14:59:14 <lbasdevant> present+
14:59:31 <apireno_groupm_> present+
14:59:35 <jbryson3> jbryson3 has joined #web-adv
14:59:47 <Michael_L> Michael_L has joined #web-adv
15:00:22 <peligio> peligio has joined #web-adv
15:00:24 <ErikAnderson> ErikAnderson has joined #web-adv
15:00:26 <jdelhommeau> jdelhommeau has joined #web-adv
15:00:30 <jdelhommeau> present+
15:00:31 <Brendan_IAB_eyeo> Brendan_IAB_eyeo has joined #web-adv
15:00:35 <ErikAnderson> present+
15:00:46 <wbaker> wbaker has joined #web-adv
15:00:52 <shigeki> shigeki has joined #web-adv
15:00:52 <Brendan_IAB_eyeo> present+
15:00:56 <wbaker> present+
15:01:19 <dmarti> dmarti has joined #web-adv
15:01:26 <nics> nics has joined #web-adv
15:01:32 <shigeki> present+
15:01:34 <nics> present+
15:01:38 <eriktaubeneck> eriktaubeneck has joined #web-adv
15:01:40 <AramZS> present+
15:01:40 <wseltzer> agenda
15:01:43 <wseltzer> agenda?
15:01:48 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #web-adv
15:01:50 <bLeparmentier> bLeparmentier has joined #web-adv
15:01:52 <FredBastello> FredBastello has joined #web-adv
15:02:01 <FredBastello> present+
15:02:10 <Karen> Wendy: As people are arriving, take a look at the agenda
15:02:17 <Karen> ...Starting with agenda curation and introductions
15:02:29 <Karen> ...Issues and pull requests; a bit of maintenance and group management
15:02:38 <Karen> ...how we are managing items in this Github repo
15:02:41 <seanbedford> seanbedford has joined #web-adv
15:02:47 <_apascoe> _apascoe has joined #web-adv
15:02:48 <Karen> ...and look at dashboard issues from external repositories
15:02:51 <mjv> mjv has joined #web-adv
15:02:53 <Karen> ...and any other business
15:02:53 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 1
15:02:53 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda-curation, introductions -- taken up [from wseltzer]
15:02:53 <seanbedford> present+
15:03:01 <eriktaubeneck> present+
15:03:09 <rstringham> rstringham has joined #web-adv
15:03:11 <kleber> kleber has joined #web-adv
15:03:24 <bLeparmentier> present+
15:03:41 <Karen> ...Any other business or items to bring to our attention for future meetings?
15:03:41 <Karen> Wendy: Any introductions? Anyone new to the group to introduce
15:03:41 <Karen> Jonas: Hi, I'm Jonas Frederiksen, from a DSP
15:03:43 <Karen> ...trying to catch up
15:03:48 <Karen> Wendy: Welcome Jonas
15:03:59 <Karen> Grant Nelson: I'm a product manager at TripleLift
15:04:05 <Karen> Wendy: Good to meet you, Grant
15:04:13 <Karen> ...a reminder that we are keeping minutes and queue in the irc
15:04:19 <Karen> ...use "irc.w3.org"
15:04:24 <aireyb> aireyb has joined #web-adv
15:04:24 <benhum> benhum has joined #web-adv
15:04:27 <arnoldrw> arnoldrw has joined #web-adv
15:04:28 <Karen> ...channel "web-adv"
15:04:29 <LesC> LesC has joined #web-adv
15:04:41 <kleber> present+
15:04:42 <CHarris> CHarris has joined #web-adv
15:04:46 <Karen> ...use "q+" to add yourself to the speaker queue
15:04:47 <jeff_burkett_gannett> jeff_burkett_gannett has joined #web-adv
15:04:49 <wseltzer> zakim, take up agendum 2
15:04:49 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Issues and Pull Requests in the web-adv repo https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/issues https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/pulls -- taken up [from wseltzer]
15:04:52 <jeff_burkett_gannett> present+
15:05:01 <Michael_L> present+
15:05:07 <Mike_Pisula> Mike_Pisula has joined #web-adv
15:05:16 <arnoldrw> present+
15:05:35 <viraj_awati> viraj_awati has joined #web-adv
15:05:42 <Karen> Wendy: I wanted to do some looking at issues and pull requests in our Github repo
15:05:42 <Karen> ...which we use to collect info from other places
15:05:42 <Karen> ...Readme has gotten very long
15:05:42 <Karen> ...it's great that we are doing lots of work
15:05:42 <Karen> ...and creating lots of info for people to read
15:05:43 <Karen> ...But it also means it gets challenging to navigate, particularly for new people coming in
15:05:45 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising#readme
15:05:51 <Karen> ...Trying to figure out where they should pay attention, and where to get started
15:05:57 <jordan_m> jordan_m has joined #web-adv
15:06:04 <Karen> ...I think that we have been spending quite a bit of time talking and using the use cases document
15:06:11 <maddy> maddy has joined #web-adv
15:06:13 <Karen> ...and might want to raise that in prominance
15:06:21 <Kelda_Anderson> Kelda_Anderson has joined #Web-Adv
15:06:23 <Karen> ...and similarly look at things that we are paying less attention to
15:06:28 <Karen> ...and move them to them to the side
15:06:36 <Karen> ...one issue was raised regarding the success criteria
15:06:37 <Jukka> Jukka has joined #web-adv
15:06:41 <Karen> ...pull request 112
15:06:48 <Jukka> present+
15:06:56 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/pull/112
15:07:00 <Karen> ...as chair I would like to make this repository useful to its participants and reflect what the group is working on and looking at
15:07:06 <arnaud_blanchard> present+
15:07:11 <cpn> cpn has joined #web-adv
15:07:28 <AramZS> q+
15:07:31 <wseltzer> q?
15:07:38 <wseltzer> ack AramZS
15:07:42 <Karen> ...I see some discussion between Aram and James
15:07:42 <Karen> ...on how we can accurately describe the state of the success criteria
15:07:42 <Karen> ...as a pointer for people about what we are working on and how
15:07:43 <Karen> Aram: Since this is my pull request, I will speak to it
15:07:43 <benhum> benhum has joined #web-adv
15:07:53 <Karen> ...My concern is not the insistence of the success criteria
15:08:01 <Karen> ...I have other issues with content outside this pull request
15:08:12 <Karen> ...Issue I have is that people come to repo and look at Readme as a guide
15:08:20 <gendler> gendler has joined #web-adv
15:08:26 <Karen> ...and the current structure implies that the success criteria is used by all participants
15:08:31 <Karen> ...and is a key piece of our methodology
15:08:36 <Karen> ...I don't see it that way
15:08:40 <Karen> ...myself or for my org
15:08:41 <gendler> present+
15:08:45 <Karen> ...other publishers have said the same
15:08:57 <Karen> ...I don't necessarily disagree with every part of it
15:09:22 <Michael_L> q+
15:09:41 <Karen> ...but status as a proposal vs. a formal thing we use is something we highlight
15:09:41 <Karen> ...My initial proposal is to remove it from Readme
15:09:41 <Karen> ...a problem we have is people write proposals which is great
15:09:41 <Karen> ...but then a general view that as soon as a proposal is there, it will be a 'thing'
15:09:42 <Karen> ...we have a nuanced view
15:09:46 <Karen> ...as people look to Readme
15:09:58 <Karen> ...to extent we have an output and what it is intended to do, it can be misleading
15:10:01 <Karen> ...it is what it is
15:10:13 <Karen> ...we cannot teach everyone who arrives our Readme procedure
15:10:25 <Karen> ...But in this case, it represents info that is being discussed elsewhere
15:10:32 <wseltzer> s/procedure/all of W3C procedure/
15:10:38 <Karen> ...the DIG proposal is happening in an entirely different area of W3C
15:10:41 <benhum> benhum has joined #web-adv
15:10:43 <wseltzer> q+
15:10:51 <Karen> ...and don't think it represents the group; also a naming conflict
15:11:02 <Karen> ...in discussion of pull request, we agree not everyone uses this
15:11:41 <Karen> ...so it should be represented in this doc in another way
15:11:41 <Karen> ...Counter thing
15:11:41 <Karen> ...I am going to try to represent counter argument
15:11:41 <Karen> ...Like EU Authority, PRAM and @
15:11:41 <Karen> ...are strongly invested in this document
15:11:45 <wseltzer> q+ to suggest moving it to "proposals"
15:11:52 <Karen> ...their interests should be considered but not nec steer this group
15:12:01 <Karen> ...making sure it's clear this doc does not represent the whole of this group
15:12:09 <Karen> ...and it is a proposal and not our actual operating procedure
15:12:12 <Karen> ...That's it for me
15:12:27 <Karen> ...Apologies if I misrepresented anyone's viewpoint, not seeing James or Josh on the queue
15:12:27 <wseltzer> ack next
15:12:38 <Karen> Michael_L: I think part of what Aram is talking abou
15:12:44 <Karen> ...is not just the success critiera doc
15:12:47 <aditya> aditya has joined #web-adv
15:12:49 <Karen> ...there is no agreement on what our goal is
15:13:00 <Karen> ...different proposals, discussions on what is threat, not a threat
15:13:14 <arnaud_blanchard> q+
15:13:41 <Karen> ...But almost every doc I have read makes these assumptions on what our success criteria
15:13:41 <Karen> ...having trouble on any doc on what/whom it represents
15:13:41 <Karen> ...Would be worthwhile to have discussion on what exactly different groups define as privacy
15:13:50 <Karen> ...and separate out threats to this group's and that group's definition of provacy
15:13:53 <Karen> s/privacy
15:13:58 <AramZS> q+ to note that I am not trying to set specific goals just note that this document does not reflect all of our goals and also what I see as what we get out of this group
15:13:58 <AramZS> q?
15:14:12 <Karen> ...if we don't have a clear goal, we can have some sub-definitions
15:14:13 <wseltzer> ack next
15:14:14 <Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to suggest moving it to "proposals"
15:14:26 <Rotem> Rotem has joined #web-adv
15:14:28 <Karen> Wendy: In the W3C context, we have the Privacy Interest Group has a draft threat model document
15:14:29 <joshua_koran> joshua_koran has joined #web-adv
15:14:29 <Michael_L> q+
15:14:43 <Karen> ...not getting as much attention, but a place to collect what is the privacy thread model of the Web
15:14:46 <Karen> ...that group welcomes input
15:14:53 <Karen> ...In this group we have sort of settled on a model
15:14:59 <wegmannt> wegmannt has joined #web-adv
15:15:14 <AramZS> link to the privacy thread model please?
15:15:41 <Karen> ...of hearing proposals, discussing them, but not explicitly calling for a group consensus
15:15:41 <Karen> ...because BG doesn't have a formal role in W3C process the way a working group does
15:15:41 <Karen> ...not as relevant to get to consensus here
15:15:41 <Karen> ...probably why these docs should go to the status of proposals
15:15:44 <Karen> ...that have been discussed
15:15:48 <Karen> ...have them as reference
15:16:01 <Karen> ...and people who want to have consensus and can take to W3C IGs and WGs
15:16:06 <Karen> ...for consensus
15:16:11 <Karen> ...they are designed to find consensus
15:16:17 <Karen> ...My specific proposal for this document
15:16:21 <wbaker> q?
15:16:36 <Karen> ...is not to remove the success criteria doc, and re-label it as a proposal and reflect that status
15:16:37 <wseltzer> ack next
15:16:45 <Karen> Arnaud: I am a bit puzzled by Aram's intervention
15:16:49 <Karen> ...I find it concerning
15:16:50 <imeyers> imeyers has joined #web-adv
15:16:56 <Karen> ...on which authority to remove some contribution
15:17:00 <Karen> ...either because of naming
15:17:07 <imeyers> present+
15:17:42 <Karen> ...from beginning, the lack of some success critiera
15:17:42 <Karen> ...so we know what we are discussing and what we are trying to achieve
15:17:42 <Karen> ...we all have our own perpsectives
15:17:42 <Karen> ...but it is a perspective on trying to define an angle
15:17:42 <Karen> ...I would prefer to have something to discuss against it
15:17:44 <wseltzer> ack next
15:17:45 <Zakim> AramZS, you wanted to note that I am not trying to set specific goals just note that this document does not reflect all of our goals and also what I see as what we get out of this
15:17:45 <Zakim> ... group
15:17:56 <Karen> Aram: to be clear, I do not want the success criteria doc to be removed
15:18:03 <Karen> ...just want to see it changed status
15:18:13 <Karen> ...and I don't want to discuss this group's success criteria
15:18:19 <raj> raj has joined #web-adv
15:18:27 <Karen> ...Personally, this group's goal is to understand proposals and to represent a variety of businesses by
15:18:29 <Karen> ...documenting
15:18:37 <Karen> ...Thanks to Ben from FB for documenting many use cases
15:18:55 <Karen> ...there is a way to document different success criteria and define their viewpoints and perspectives
15:19:02 <Karen> ...but presenting as "the group's" success criteria
15:19:15 <kris_chapman> I agree with Aram
15:19:18 <wseltzer> zakim, close queue
15:19:18 <Zakim> ok, wseltzer, the speaker queue is closed
15:19:31 <cpn> +1 Aram
15:19:42 <Karen> ...is not neutral and is misleading to new members
15:19:42 <Karen> ...we have done that before
15:19:42 <Karen> ...the set of people in this group is so diverse
15:19:42 <Karen> ...I don't think we can come to a single set of success criteria; why I think it's misleading
15:19:45 <Karen> ...Not to get rid of the doc
15:19:53 <Karen> ...just concerned that new members and those external to group
15:20:04 <Karen> ...see this doc, which is long, and not get a good understanding of what this group is
15:20:07 <Karen> ...All I am looking for
15:20:17 <Karen> ...is to move it to stating it as a proposed success criteria
15:20:27 <Karen> ...and to make it clearer what the work of this group is
15:20:36 <Karen> ...having it well defined on the Readme is counterproductive
15:20:47 <arnaud_blanchard> q+
15:20:55 <Karen> ...To listen, give feedback, state use cases, and state our various view points is the main purpose of this group
15:20:57 <Karen> ...and that is fine
15:21:26 <wseltzer> ack next
15:21:42 <Karen> ...to get consensus on standards, it happens elsewhere in W3C
15:21:42 <Karen> ...not trying to get rid of or eliminate
15:21:42 <Karen> ...just make it clearer to how it affects this group
15:21:42 <Karen> Wendy: I closed the queue
15:21:42 <Karen> Michael_L: sounds like there is some interst
15:21:50 <Karen> ...to have people define their individual success criteria
15:22:07 <Karen> ...A bit meta; I wrote a doc for myself to understand definitions and consistency threats
15:22:10 <AramZS> I think it would be cool to share that document via a PR yes!
15:22:15 <Karen> ...a tool for me, but I could make it more available
15:22:20 <Karen> ...so others can use as guide
15:22:29 <Karen> ...I can present at future meeting if there is interest in that
15:22:32 <Karen> ...To Aram's point
15:22:36 <btsavage> btsavage has joined #web-adv
15:22:43 <btsavage> q?
15:22:44 <Karen> ...the way we are defining threats on various documents
15:22:56 <Karen> ...the threats are not one group's or one collective's opinion
15:23:41 <Karen> ...there are in some, not others...issues solved by another thing
15:23:41 <Karen> ...If we want to clarify what is consensus and what is not, we have to look at a lot more than just this Readme
15:23:41 <Karen> Wendy: I acknowledge that
15:23:44 <Karen> ...what I have seen work best is that the authors of docs manage it and state accurately what it is
15:23:49 <btsavage> q+
15:23:53 <Karen> ...and guide people as to whose viewpoints are reflected there
15:24:01 <Karen> ...that can provide a set of opinions
15:24:13 <Karen> ...and from that people can determine where they see consensus or not yet consensus
15:24:31 <Karen> ...We don't have the mechanism here to produce a joint document that reflects all of the different opinions
15:24:37 <Karen> ...and the "one right way" to handle privacy
15:24:42 <Karen> ...many ways to get there
15:24:46 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/pull/112
15:24:48 <Karen> ...Seeing many others wanting to join the queue
15:24:53 <Karen> ...Suggest we go back to pull request
15:24:56 <Karen> ...link is in irc
15:25:22 <AramZS> I have altered the PR to move the link to "Proposals"
15:25:29 <wseltzer> zakim, reopen queue
15:25:29 <Zakim> ok, wseltzer, the speaker queue is open
15:25:42 <Karen> ...and maybe we can resume that asynchronously
15:25:42 <Karen> ...I wanted to invite other issues that people wanted to raise
15:25:42 <Karen> ...or questions
15:25:42 <Karen> ...if there are others we can come back to this one
15:25:42 <Karen> Aram: noting as part of this discussion
15:25:51 <Karen> ...rename it "proposed success standards"
15:25:57 <Karen> Wendy: Thanks, Aram
15:26:04 <Karen> ...other open pull requests that we have
15:26:07 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/pulls
15:26:09 <AramZS> q+
15:26:20 <Karen> ...updating to the common user flows document
15:26:29 <Karen> ...do we have somebody who is maintaining that document
15:26:35 <Karen> ...and take a look at pull request 96
15:26:45 <Karen> Ben: I created that doc and could look at the pull request
15:26:54 <Karen> Wendy: Thanks very much, Ben
15:26:56 <Karen> ...other things?
15:27:26 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/pull/113
15:27:42 <Karen> ...We have mapping of SWAN community proposal
15:27:42 <Karen> Aram: Regarding mapping of SWAN community proposal...
15:27:42 <Karen> ...I am wondering
15:27:42 <Karen> ...I don't have a problem with SWAN being added, just have it be in matching style
15:27:51 <Michael_L> q+
15:27:55 <Karen> ...I do wonder, in case where we believe when something is authored to address a use case
15:28:01 <Karen> ...but we all don't agree that it's a use case
15:28:08 <Karen> ...ok to merge once markdown is made
15:28:13 <Karen> ...wonder if there is a situation as here
15:28:17 <Karen> ...outside this pull request
15:28:33 <Karen> ...where a proposal states it addresses a use case, but some don't think it addresses the use case
15:28:44 <wseltzer> ack next
15:28:44 <Karen> ...If it reads that it claims to address this use case
15:28:47 <Karen> ...just curious
15:28:59 <Karen> Michael_L: I think this relates to what I said before
15:29:04 <Karen> ...relates not just to SWAN
15:29:34 <AramZS> q+
15:29:38 <wseltzer> ack next
15:29:39 <Karen> ...other proposals state they do something, but not sure if they do
15:29:39 <Karen> ...I'm putting work into analyzing self consistency
15:29:39 <Karen> ...I am treating it as a claim
15:29:43 <wseltzer> ack next
15:29:49 <wseltzer> q+
15:29:51 <Karen> ...not sure what to do if proposal says it "solves X" but it doesn't "solve X"
15:29:57 <Karen> Aram: This is interesting discussion
15:30:05 <Karen> ...making up here...this allows you to verify your audience
15:30:17 <Karen> ...but I look at it and I don't see that it addresses the problem, the use case
15:30:22 <Karen> ...I wonder if it makes sense
15:30:29 <Karen> ...hesitate to suggest additional work
15:30:40 <Karen> ...but maybe break out these use cases into their own stand-alone documents
15:30:50 <Karen> ...as we are seeing these community proposals get more extensive and detailed
15:30:52 <kris_chapman> q+
15:31:01 <Karen> ...ability to parse in just a table format is more difficult
15:31:18 <wseltzer> q- later
15:31:34 <wseltzer> ack next
15:31:41 <Karen> ...maybe more markdown, linked to the table
15:31:41 <Karen> ...so there can be more detailed discussion, what they do and don't do
15:31:41 <Karen> ...Not sure if people are interested in that or not
15:31:41 <Karen> ...Seems to be a way to handle it; a notion way
15:31:41 <Karen> ...maybe it works
15:31:42 <Karen> Kris_Chapman: On a related note
15:31:49 <Karen> ...I do think there is something towards needing to
15:32:03 <Karen> ...to indicate whether we think all the use cases are accurate or portrayed
15:32:07 <Karen> ...Thinking it would be nice
15:32:13 <Karen> ...if something talked about a general status
15:32:22 <Karen> ...We get these proposals; some just linger
15:32:33 <Karen> ...and you wonder if it is still being acted on, is it dead in the water
15:32:39 <Karen> ...I like the way the browser vendors
15:32:46 <arnaud_blanchard> q?
15:32:46 <Karen> ...when putting out their "intent to" notices
15:32:48 <AramZS> q+ to point to the Testing Opportunities section added to see if that meets Kris_Chapman's need here
15:32:55 <Karen> ...state if their proposals are supported by other vendors or not
15:32:58 <Karen> ...I think we should do the same
15:33:13 <wseltzer> ack AramZS
15:33:13 <Zakim> AramZS, you wanted to point to the Testing Opportunities section added to see if that meets Kris_Chapman's need here
15:33:40 <Karen> ...not only are the use cases there, but which browsers have shown any support for this or not
15:33:40 <Karen> Wendy: Thanks, Kris
15:33:40 <Karen> Aram: So I also noticed that we needed more of a status of these issues
15:33:40 <Karen> ...I see the pull request has been approved
15:33:41 <Karen> ...I added a testing set to the Readme
15:33:45 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising#testing-opportunities
15:33:46 <Karen> ...Like to see other places
15:33:55 <Karen> ...Google has done it; see that Criteo has as well
15:34:01 <kris_chapman> q+
15:34:08 <Karen> ...Maybe this is a place to answer questions that Kris brings up
15:34:15 <Karen> Wendy: Thanks, Aram, for bringing this up
15:34:26 <Karen> ...I merged it because I thought it was uncontroversial addition
15:34:31 <Karen> ...to the Readme
15:34:42 <Karen> ...Agree that the Criteo ML challenge sounds like a good one to add there
15:34:46 <wbaker> q?
15:34:51 <Karen> ...To the question of adding more information to the use cases document
15:34:56 <Karen> ...or extending it in additional documents
15:35:04 <Karen> ...whichever people are likely to do the work
15:35:12 <btsavage> q+
15:35:42 <Karen> ...to maintain
15:35:42 <Karen> ...I want to really thank Ben for the initial setup of the document
15:35:42 <Karen> ...that has been helpful to give people a framework
15:35:42 <Karen> ...to add opinionated segments about what use cases they see, and significant detail about what is required
15:35:55 <Karen> ...to meet those use cases; and to help evaluate; and proposal authors can say what they are doing to meet use cases
15:36:20 <Karen> ...and those whose use case it is, can see if it meets my business needs; or does it characterize things the way I think it should
15:36:20 <wseltzer> ack next
15:36:23 <Karen> ...use that information
15:36:24 <wseltzer> ack next
15:36:29 <Karen> Kris: I was going to reply to Aram
15:36:33 <Karen> ...the testing opp could work
15:36:39 <Karen> ...expand beyond testing to when appropriate
15:37:00 <wseltzer> ack next
15:37:04 <Karen> ..what the browsers think and more general status on whether proposers are continuing; if active or stagnant
15:37:41 <Karen> Ben: This is great feedback on how to improve this document
15:37:41 <Karen> ...can we use composition to make it filtered by use case of stakeholder
15:37:41 <Karen> ...back to success criteria discussion
15:37:41 <Karen> ...difficult to represent for all participants
15:37:54 <Karen> ...perhaps each stakeholder could state the critical use cases to be solved
15:37:55 <Michael_L> q+
15:38:04 <Karen> ...and pull in from central use cas doc
15:38:09 <Karen> ...and maybe this status is a good idea
15:38:15 <Karen> ...get a read on the viability of proposals
15:38:35 <Karen> ...there are spectrums: no browsers endorsed; one or two browsers endorsed; etc.
15:38:50 <kris_chapman> I like that idea, Ben
15:38:52 <Karen> ...define use cases in one place; make your own grid and filter it dynamically
15:38:56 <AramZS> I think this is a really cool idea and I also do not know how to handle that via Markdown
15:39:00 <wseltzer> ack next
15:39:01 <Karen> Wendy: Invite ways to achieve it, here or offline
15:39:14 <wseltzer> q+
15:39:42 <Karen> Michael_L: I agree with a lot of what Ben said
15:39:42 <Karen> ...get weigh in from perspective of various groups
15:39:42 <Karen> ...we should not only go based on browser by-in
15:39:42 <Karen> buy-in
15:39:54 <Karen> ...no sure if business case; track use case from each group's perspectives could be useful
15:40:00 <Karen> ...not sure of optimal way to do it
15:40:07 <Karen> ...but evaluating proposals for self-consistency
15:40:14 <Karen> ...a small piece but could be useful in finding things
15:40:24 <Karen> ...within a privacy threat perspective
15:40:35 <Karen> ...ask if my current tool for doing that might be something interesting to see
15:40:35 <AramZS> Yes, interested to see it!
15:40:41 <Karen> ...ask people to look and get feedback
15:40:45 <Karen> Wendy: I see some interest in the irc
15:40:54 <Karen> ...I will echo that if you would like to offer a demo
15:40:59 <peligio> Yep, sounds interesting. Thanks!
15:41:12 <wbaker> q?
15:41:42 <Karen> ...to help us understand what you are meaning by "self-consistency" in proposal evaluation
15:41:42 <Karen> ...and I'll talk to colleagues who have worked with other tracking tools...can I use
15:41:42 <wseltzer> ack me
15:41:44 <Karen> ...to see if there are pieces of technical infrastructure to note where things are and pulling together
15:41:51 <Karen> ...of other components within a document
15:42:01 <Karen> ...Any other issues or pull requests that people would like to raise?
15:42:09 <wseltzer> https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising/issues
15:42:12 <Karen> ...Sometimes we have used the issues as places to store information
15:42:19 <Karen> ...we have an issue like 104 on related meetings
15:42:30 <Karen> ...I don't expect to close that since it's a pointer to other activities
15:42:46 <Karen> ...others are listings are places where people are holding discussions
15:43:00 <Karen> ...and get questions like 'where do I discuss something that are non-advertising use cases'
15:43:03 <wseltzer> q?
15:43:15 <wbaker> q?
15:43:18 <btsavage> q+
15:43:23 <wseltzer> ack next
15:43:41 <Karen> ...and go to where they are being incubated
15:43:41 <Karen> ...Take a look at the issues
15:43:41 <Karen> ...and see if there are other things to raise or suggest closing, let me know
15:43:41 <Karen> Ben: We could have a step towards a vision of what I was saying before
15:43:43 <Karen> ...create a doc
15:43:54 <Karen> ...that contains the viewpoint of various stakeholders on various issues
15:44:06 <Karen> ...we had an interesting discussion on privacy breakout
15:44:13 <Karen> ...with myself and John Wl
15:44:18 <Karen> ...one use case was measurement
15:44:27 <Karen> ...reporting to an advertiser what they got
15:44:31 <Karen> ...reporting might be better term
15:44:37 <Karen> ...separate use case is optimization
15:44:48 <Karen> ...how one uses data to decide which ad to show to which person
15:44:52 <Karen> ...way to find relevant ads
15:45:00 <Karen> ...John's response was really relevant to me
15:45:40 <Karen> ...at this time Safari is only trying to solve the former use case, and not solve optimization use case
15:45:40 <Karen> ...That was particularly helpful to me
15:45:40 <Karen> ...and also helpful for others
15:45:45 <Karen> ...The Trade Desk...talking about use cases for connected TVs
15:45:59 <Karen> ...getting people on the record to state where they stand on various use cases could be quite helpful
15:46:05 <Karen> Wendy: That is an expression of intent
15:46:18 <Karen> ...or interest in 'is this use case one we might impliment"
15:46:25 <Karen> ..."actively won't"; "might consider"
15:46:30 <Karen> ...that could be an interesting document
15:46:36 <Karen> ...and see what sorts of feedback it would get
15:46:54 <Karen> Ben: If I were to point out a skeleton of such a document
15:46:54 <Michael_L> q+
15:46:59 <Karen> ...would anyone be willing to go on the record
15:47:00 <kris_chapman> I would
15:47:05 <Karen> ...using whatever value you want
15:47:21 <AramZS> q+
15:47:42 <Karen> ...and not constrain what you say
15:47:42 <Karen> ...but something short to put into the grid
15:47:42 <Karen> ...I know it's hard to put one's stance on the record in some large orgs
15:47:42 <Karen> @: yes
15:47:42 <Karen> @: yes
15:47:42 <Karen> Kris: yes, I could for SF
15:47:47 <Karen> ...and could share more
15:47:50 <Karen> Ben: Awesome
15:47:59 <AramZS> I would love to see that too!
15:48:00 <Karen> ...perhaps PRAM could comment? Anyone here?
15:48:02 <wbaker> q+
15:48:08 <Karen> Wendy: not sure
15:48:12 <wseltzer> ack Michael_L
15:48:19 <Karen> Michael_L: First of all, I like this idea
15:48:24 <Karen> ...we could use a document like this
15:48:26 <wseltzer> q+ re "null value"
15:48:30 <Karen> ...one thing I am worried about and should address
15:48:36 <Karen> ...there has been a certain chilling effect
15:48:43 <Karen> ...if it could impact their company with smaller publishers
15:48:50 <Karen> ...I speak with publishers about every single proposal
15:49:29 <kris_chapman> q+
15:49:41 <Karen> ...and what I have heard a lot is we don't want to make waves; we don't want to disclose our opinions
15:49:41 <Karen> ...due to deals we are making
15:49:41 <Karen> ...controversial opinions might be understated in such a document
15:49:41 <Karen> Wendy: We can only get what information we can get
15:49:41 <Karen> ...I queued up to note we might have plenty of "no entries"
15:49:49 <Karen> ...with no public or official opinion by a various sector
15:49:51 <bmay> q+
15:49:57 <Karen> ...we are not in a position to force people to fill out info
15:50:10 <Karen> ...but where they are willing to share that could help guide people to understand the status of proposals
15:50:12 <wseltzer> ack AramZS
15:50:13 <wseltzer> q-
15:50:14 <Karen> Aram: I was going to add
15:50:29 <Karen> ...there is obviously, some things are easier or harder to contribute public opinion
15:50:44 <Karen> ...this is the sort of place, where trade groups could step in like PRAM, @
15:50:56 <wseltzer> s/@/LMC, DCN/
15:51:05 <Karen> ...ways for them to communicate their viewpoints without exposing themselves to how they conduct their business
15:51:09 <wseltzer> ack next
15:51:42 <Karen> ...inviting them seems like a good way to go
15:51:42 <Karen> Wendell: I participate in quite a number of these groups
15:51:42 <Karen> ...from web side in W3C
15:51:42 <Karen> ...to industry groups and have visibility on a few more
15:51:42 <Karen> ...one of things stiking here
15:52:05 <Karen> ...level of uncertainty in trade press, and to cut that uncertainty
15:52:14 <Karen> ...gets back to our shop...'they allowed it to be uncertain'
15:52:23 <Karen> ...they could have been clear, but left it vague
15:52:31 <Karen> ...there are only two builders of the tech here
15:52:42 <Karen> ...not entirely clear what they are doing to do; that is why we are here
15:52:47 <Karen> ...we have done our own analysis
15:52:52 <Karen> ...hard to predict the future
15:53:01 <Karen> ...we have gone through our 'five stages of grief'
15:53:42 <Karen> ...interdiction, such as threat models
15:53:42 <Karen> ...our analysis shows they are fairly doable
15:53:42 <Karen> ...against a thread or adversary
15:53:42 <Karen> ...a lot of writing on that
15:53:42 <Karen> ...what will be launched now or soon
15:53:46 <Karen> ...Other area is business continuity; what will continue and what will be stopped
15:53:52 <Karen> ...that is where vagueness comes in
15:53:59 <Karen> ...Will use the word "stakeholders"
15:54:02 <Karen> ...they are not all equa
15:54:04 <Karen> l
15:54:13 <Karen> ...some have a lot, others a little, some not at all
15:54:22 <Karen> ...governments and the builders of the software themselves
15:54:25 <AramZS> q?
15:54:26 <Karen> ...others are along for the ride
15:54:26 <wseltzer> q+
15:54:33 <AramZS> q+
15:54:34 <Karen> ...these groups are not largely talking to each other
15:54:37 <Michael_L> q+
15:54:43 <Karen> ...or acknowledging each other's concers
15:54:54 <Karen> ...we have unique opportunity to get answers to these questions
15:55:06 <Karen> ...I am supportive of getting a matrix for a sort of 'can I use' facility
15:55:10 <btsavage> q+
15:55:27 <wseltzer> zakim, close queue
15:55:27 <Zakim> ok, wseltzer, the speaker queue is closed
15:55:42 <Karen> ...we have some of it written down, but not everyone agrees
15:55:42 <Karen> ...that web will be stateless, and have to login
15:55:42 <Karen> ...and have to log out after an event
15:55:42 <Karen> ...that is not widely agreed on
15:55:45 <Karen> ...even though one of builders of software is headed in this direction
15:56:01 <Karen> ...we should have more humming or checkmarking to get the web we want
15:56:10 <Karen> ...shows a lack of commitment by those in power to command and control
15:56:14 <Karen> ...and also a lack of understanding
15:56:25 <Karen> ...for those trying to participate in the origin trials
15:56:35 <Karen> ...a lot of learning about how ad tech really works; how grubby it is
15:56:46 <Karen> ...not clear that is widely understood outside the trade
15:56:56 <Karen> ...or part of browser's requirements to continuity
15:57:09 <kris_chapman> q-
15:57:41 <Karen> ...good to define a set of processes, wants, etc.
15:57:41 <Karen> ...looking for a formal answer to this continuity side stuff
15:57:41 <Karen> ...wrap up there
15:57:47 <Karen> Wendy: Just to respond to one point on your perception of where the power is
15:57:54 <Karen> ...in W3C, every participant has an equal voice
15:58:00 <wseltzer> ack next
15:58:02 <Karen> ...we try to maintain in all of our conversations
15:58:03 <bhumphry> bhumphry has joined #web-adv
15:58:03 <bhumphry> bhumphry has joined #web-adv
15:58:17 <Karen> Brian: I hear a lot of concern about where are we going and how are we going to get there
15:58:24 <Karen> ...and who will tell us when we are off the road
15:58:26 <Karen> ...all valid concerns
15:58:39 <Karen> ...to Ben's request for clarity, they do put out regular blog posts
15:58:48 <Karen> ...maybe we put thought behind specific questions
15:59:05 <Karen> ...state of affairs has been browsers present, and everyone decides what to do about
15:59:28 <wseltzer> ack aram
15:59:29 <btsavage> q-
15:59:31 <wseltzer> q-
15:59:42 <Karen> ...Maybe a new approach about what will or will not be incorporated in your roadmaps
15:59:42 <Karen> Wendy: one minute left with many on queue
15:59:42 <Karen> ...be brief
15:59:43 <Karen> Aram: just sounds like there is support for Ben's doc and we should go forward
15:59:53 <Karen> ...and support for expanding the use case doc outside of what can be fit
16:00:06 <btsavage> Thanks Aram!
16:00:11 <wseltzer> ack next
16:00:13 <Karen> ...I will see if I can work up an expanded link doc; links to blogs, discussions around definitions and use cases it falls into
16:00:28 <Karen> Michael_L: yes, sounds like support for Ben's doc
16:00:42 <Karen> ...I will refine my consistency tool so we can discuss different privacy definitions
16:00:52 <Karen> ...and I can present that when convenient, but I have to do more work there
16:01:01 <Karen> Wendy: Great, I will coordinate with you offline
16:01:05 <wseltzer> [adjourned]
16:01:42 <Karen> ...thanks all, and thanks to Karen [scribe]
16:02:10 <arnaud_blanchard> arnaud_blanchard has joined #web-adv
16:05:09 <arnaud_b_> arnaud_b_ has joined #web-adv
17:05:56 <Karen> Karen has joined #web-adv
17:34:22 <arnaud_blanchard> arnaud_blanchard has joined #web-adv
17:37:23 <bLeparmentier> bLeparmentier has joined #web-adv
17:39:15 <Karen> Karen has joined #web-adv
18:04:14 <AramZS> AramZS has joined #web-adv
18:15:30 <arnaud_blanchard> arnaud_blanchard has joined #web-adv
18:39:23 <bLeparmentier> bLeparmentier has joined #web-adv
18:44:06 <hober> hober has joined #web-adv
20:31:55 <arnaud_blanchard> arnaud_blanchard has joined #web-adv
20:59:38 <Karen> Karen has joined #web-adv
21:55:54 <Karen> Karen has joined #web-adv
22:02:14 <arnaud_blanchard> arnaud_blanchard has joined #web-adv
22:18:42 <arnaud_blanchard> arnaud_blanchard has joined #web-adv
22:58:12 <bLeparmentier> bLeparmentier has joined #web-adv
23:54:51 <wbaker> wbaker has joined #web-adv
23:57:22 <wbaker> wbaker has joined #web-adv
23:58:59 <wbaker> wbaker has joined #web-adv