Is this something obviously different from #62? @draggett?

https://www.w3.org/community/patcg/ was launched in October to identify proposals towards standardization and a supporting WG charter

Draft WG charter: https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter

I'm moving this pipeline card from "Investigation" to "Evaluation"

direct link to charter https://patcg.github.io/patwg-charter/charter.html

The draft WG charter is ready for horizontal review.

Charter Review

Private Advertising Technology Working Group Charter

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• New WG

Advance notice sent: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2022May/0009.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2022AprJun/0037.html

Communities suggested for outreach: Improving Web Advertising BG, Privacy CG

Known or potential areas of concern:

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues

Anything else we should think about as we review? This work has been - and future work items will be - incubated in the Privacy CG and/or Private Advertising Technology (PAT) CG. The charter was developed by the community in the PAT CG.

• line of Brief background of at right above '1. Scope' is remaining as template but not removed??
• It seems a link to 'Private Attribution Measurement' is not set? (I could find only repository for discussion but not spec development one, although..)

APA has no comments on the charter, but expects to review deliverables. It is important that the technology preserve privacy for users of assistive technology as well.

no comment/request from i18n

I made a couple of charter suggestions, neither of which are blocking.

I observe that the charter uses the "separate privacy and security sections" language, which we've recently changed in the template, but there's no problem with using this version.

Sent for AC review in August 2022: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2022JulSep/0033.html (member only) Snapshot sent for review

Result of AC review (member-only)

Returned to CG for further work October 2022: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2022OctDec/0008.html (member-only)

Diff between charter as sent for review in August 2022 and working copy

The PAT CG has revised the charter and is ready for it to be considered again.

(@pes10k is interesting in getting a review from PING)

Reviewing from TiLT role, some comments:

1. The link to the one normative spec is dead; AC reps must be able to see the proposed doc. I haven't checked all links, this should be done.
2. I'm not comfortable with "The Working Group intends to add other normative specifications as the technology becomes ready". The charter should specify what it will work on, and recharter if adding new work. An editorial change that would address my concern and might meet the intent anyways would be to clarify that the deliverables under incubation would be added in a future charter period of this group.
3. Section 2.3 Timeline hasn't been completed. It needs to say something, and can have a reference to an external resource for better info.
4. This may need updates to the latest charter template, in the template diff the Success Criteria section in particular seems out of date.
5. I'm curious about section 10 Anti-trust. This is not something I've seen in a charter before, and I don't know the reasons or implications. It would be helpful to know more about why that's there and what review was involved.

I tend to agree re: section 10; charters shouldn't be setting policies like this.

section 10 should be removed since it's applicable no matter what.

Strong -1 from me, this charter is only partly finished and is not at all ready for AC review.

1. I agree with all of the points that @michael-n-cooper makes above, some of which I also made on the most recent TiLT call and which have not been addressed.

2. The sole deliverable has an empty link:

<dt id="private-attribution" class="spec"><a href="#)">Private Attribution Measurement</a></dt>

and is missing all of the required information for a rec-track deliverable such as the Draft state, Adopted Draft, Exclusion Draft, and Exclusion Draft charter.

3. The Motivation and Background section is missing

4. It is unclear why a novel term "Design Team" is introduced, whose policies "for example" are largely undefined. If this is a task force (subset of the WG, with identical policies) say so.

5. the [team contact name] is missing

In general, please start again with a fresh, current copy of the charter template; add in the information from the current charter draft, and re-open this issue when the charter is actually ready for review.

I think its important for this issue to be addressed. Right now the group has a negative scope (to pursue advertising solutions that are appropriate, where appropriate doesn't mean X or Y). This seems odd and overly broad in defining a scope for a group. I think the charter should state what privacy goals or boundaries it group is aiming to work within, not an incomplete, unbounded list of things it won't do.

The CG has has not yet adopted a baseline document for the attribution measurement deliverable. I have added the document state clarification ("No Draft") and provided a pointer to the repository for discussion.

This provides something to look at - thanks.

2. I'm not comfortable with "The Working Group intends to add other normative specifications as the technology becomes ready". The charter should specify what it will work on, and recharter if adding new work. An editorial change that would address my concern and might meet the intent anyways would be to clarify that the deliverables under incubation would be added in a future charter period of this group.

The harder we make it to bring in-scope items from the CG into the WG, the more likely the work will simply happen in a CG.

The PAT CG crafted a very specific, narrow, and highly-refined Scope statement that they expect to describe the work the WG will adopt from incubation (from the CG). Having spent that energy on the Scope, they (and I) don't want a do full recharter merely to add a single item within that scope. We would of course document the added items at the next rechartering cycle.

My interpretation of the Process is that groups must recharter to add deliverables. So I still think this is a concern, but others may weigh in.

3. Section 2.3 Timeline hasn't been completed. It needs to say something, and can have a reference to an external resource for better info.

Fleshed out to the extent possible given only one named deliverable.

Looks good.

4. This may need updates to the latest charter template, in the template diff the Success Criteria section in particular seems out of date.

The CG did some pretty serious customization of this section. If there are particular template updates you think they overlooked, call those out, but in general the departure from the template is deliberate.

I don't have specific changes I'm looking for, but when it comes to TiLT approval, matching the latest charter template is something they look at. Customized text can be ok, though if it was customized a while ago it would be good to re-integrate the latest template wording where appropriate around the customized parts.

5. I'm curious about section 10 Anti-trust. This is not something I've seen in a charter before, and I don't know the reasons or implications. It would be helpful to know more about why that's there and what review was involved.

IIRC, this was added in response to a request from James Rosewell at patcg/patwg-charter#10. W3M has decided that this will be removed.

Looks good.

@AramZS @seanturner I believe that we're currently stuck for the PAT WG charter. The CG is rejecting the Team request to update the proposal charter draft further.

The W3C Strategy team believes that the charter, as currently written, is an open ended charter that is not ready to commit to an actual technical proposal yet. At best, it links to an empty repository that hasn't been updated for more than a year.

Either we propose to set up a Working Group:

1. to work on one or more actual technical proposals (and may adopt further proposals later),
2. or, to explore the different proposals and recharter the Working Group with the actual technical proposals once we know how to move forward (similar to what was done with the Web Fonts charter in the past).

Should we get together to figure this out?

@plehegar could you link to where these requirements for new work are documented? Thanks.

@plehegar
I checked with @AramZS can we meet next week Tuesday (July 8) after 2pm eastern or Wednesday (July 9) after 2pm.

@seanturner @AramZS , sure, I'll follow by email.

@mnot , we don't have such list. We have a charter template, which gets adjusted based on feedback we receive during AC reviews. In our experience, open-ended charter for a complete new group will raise a lot of eyebrows from the Membership. There was a recent discussion around the privacy working group which had similar issues for example.

this will need to loop through the CG but I believe we may have a path forward here:

• refine the description of the PAM deliverable to narrow it down a bit more
• resync the success criteria with the charter template
• refine the coordination with IETF/ECMA/WHATWG for the purposes of demonstrating wide review before moving to Candidate Recommendation

One sentence was dropped from the success criteria of the charter template:
[[
This Working Group expects to follow the TAG Web Platform Design Principles
]]
Is there any story behind it or shall we try to be in sync with the template?

I have the same question as @siusin

That one point aside, the charter looks much better now.

Pull request to re-align the proposed charter with the template is at patcg/patwg-charter#74

Announcement of AC review (member-only)

Charter snapshot for review (public)
WBS poll (member-only)

update: we have one Formal Objection and the Team is investigating.

Here are the formal objections for this charter:

• https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-comments/2024Jan/0004.html
• https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-comments/2024Jan/0005.html

Note that they include by reference the following formal objections from the 2022 AC review:

• https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-comments/2024Jan/0001.html
• https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-comments/2024Jan/0002.html
• https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-review-comments/2024Jan/0003.html

@plehegar just confirming, but are these the same objection with different formatting, or am I missing something?

Council was convened on March 3.

The Team announced convening a Council on March 3rd.

The Council was announced. Team report is available.

The CEO overruled the formal objection and we're now proceeding with launching the Working Group.