Moving forward on PATWG Charter Submission
AramZS opened this issue · comments
After discussion between the chairs and in consideration of the rough consensus achieved in the meeting to submit the charter we originally gave the sole objector 72 hours to bring further support to their objections. We did see additional feedback from another party and, as promised, have given significant additional time, energy and consideration to the objections, discussing and engaging on a number of threads around the Working Group charter.
After considering feedback from those who objected and those who wish to move forward we have judged the rough consensus to be that we should move forward and submit the charter at the beginning of next week.
While the issues that were open are not blocking this next step, we remind all participants that the submission and adoption of the Working Group charter is a multi step process that does not end at the next step. Accordingly, we are leaving these issues open to reflect the discussion and give participants the opportunity for refinement in order to engage at a later stage of the chartering process.
As always, we appreciate all feedback and discussion and look forward to the process progressing towards chartering the working group.
See #38.
@AramZS can you help clarify (or help me find the relevant W3C docs) the next steps in multi-step process, and what the rough timeline is for that?
@eriktaubeneck I believe the process is: The W3C is reviewing our charter now and will give feedback and possible suggestions, then the AC will review and give their approval. They may suggest horizontal review from other groups. Finally, once that review is completed and all changes are resolved, it will go to the W3C board for final approval.
@eriktaubeneck That is my feeling as well and I've just left a comment on #38 in regard to that.
Here is the relevant W3C Process: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#WGCharterDevelopment
@jwrosewell You can see an update at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2022OctDec/0008.html (member only list archive).
This is a community group where not all those that follow the subject are able to access the member only information. 51Degrees made their Formal Objection on the charter review public. Mozilla also made their Formal Objection public.
All Formal Objections must be made public according to the W3C Process.
A record of each Formal Objection must be publicly available. A Call for Review (of a document) to the Advisory Committee must identify any Formal Objections.
Can W3C Team confirm only two Formal Objections were received and are therefore already in the public domain, or if there are others provide a link to them? It's possible that I've missed the public links due to inexperience of the Process and tools.
Others may not have made their review comments public if they were not Formal Objections. Given that Google directed an entire industry to the W3C to collaborate on private advertising technologies it does seem less than transparent not to provide their comments publicly. Google are not shy when it comes to public statements concerning privacy and advertising.
It would also be helpful to understand publicly if there was sufficient support for the charter for it to progress? The W3C has 472 members, and the threshold for acceptance is 5%. Given the focus on the subject this seems like a low bar to achieve positive support if there is an appetite among members for the W3C to work on advertising technologies.
I have given a public status update: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2022Oct/0012.html
Several reviewers raised substantive objections or suggestions, and this
charter did not gain support of 5% of the W3C membership.[1] We expect
to continue discussion in the PATCG repository[2] before bringing an
updated charter back for membership consideration.[1] https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html#cfr
[2] https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/
Note: We will be opening issues around specific feedback on the Charter. Issues are not intended to note comprehensive feedback, as there are multiple methods of response involved. If your objections are not covered in an issue, they may be later or they may be responded to via different means.