W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2012

W3C TPWG Process Follow UP

From: Marc Groman <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:52:18 -0400
Message-Id: <012C0C7A-750B-456F-8B0B-BF030CD0F98E@networkadvertising.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Dear Aleecia, Matthias, Nick, and Thomas:
> 
> I thought that today’s conference call was very helpful and I am looking forward to participating in next week’s face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC.  In fact, we are now W3C members!  Over the past few weeks there have been several offline discussions about the W3C process generally and the specific process to be used in our Tracking Protection Working Group.  Notwithstanding those conversations and other efforts to respond to specific issues raised by different participants, I am concerned that there remains considerable confusion around the process and procedures for this Working Group. 
> 
> I see that process is on the agenda for next Tuesday morning and you mentioned during today’s call that we may be receiving an email on this topic in the near future.  I certainly appreciate these efforts but given that the meeting is Tuesday and we have an aggressive agenda and timeline, I would respectfully suggest that more written clarification in advance of our meeting would be really helpful.  Thus, with an eye towards an efficient and productive process at our  DC meeting, I would like to highlight some questions and outline our understanding of the process based on a review of the Working Group charter, the W3C process, and the more recently proposed “getting to closed” document.  I believe that it would be helpful to all the stakeholders participating in our group if you would please confirm that this is your understanding and address any remaining questions.  If I have it wrong, I apologize.  Moreover, I apologize if our emails cross in cyberspace and you've already addressed these issues.  
> 
> Consensus
> 
> As I understand the process, our objective is to seek group consensus on each issue and the documents to be released by the TPWG.   According to the W3C Process Document, consensus means a substantial number of individuals in the TPWG (which I am guessing means voting members in good standing as listed on the W3C public website) support the decision and no one in the set registers a Formal Objection.  In Brussels there was a proposal to revise this process - "if the chairs can identify solutions that fit an 80/20 solution, we can close the issue."  Under this proposal, I believe consensus is reached when 80% of the voting members present support a solution.  Many participants are unclear if that indeed became part of the process.  Some of the confusion may stem from the recently released document titled, "Tracking Protection Working Group: Getting to Closed," which doesn't appear to mention the 80/20 solution proposed at the meeting. Is it correct that consensus used to be reached by the support of a substantial number of individuals but was clarified in Brussels to more specifically mean 80% of the voting members support the decision? 
> 
> Formal Objections
> 
> I'm not sure this is relevant for next week but it is worth clarifying the process since it is referenced in the "Getting to Closed" Document.  According to the W3C Process Document, the group must follow procedures to manage dissent.  Formal objections may be raised at any time and must be addressed.  Please clarify when and how Formal Objections would be filed and documented during next week's meeting and throughout the TPWG process. 
> 
> Voting Process 
> 
> It is my understanding that voting is used to resolve issues when consensus can't be reached.  So, under the Brussels revision, if 80% of the Voting Members do not support a position or a Formal Objection has been issued, then a vote is taken.  The Tracking Protection Working Group Charter does not define these voting procedures.  The "Tracking Protection Working Group: Getting to Closed" document states chairs have the discretion to use a straw poll to call for objections with the chairs judging consensus and explaining their reasoning in writing.  It would be helpful to know in more detail when it is appropriate to call a straw poll instead of using the formal voting procedures and how the Group anticipates this would work next week. 
> 
> Voting Participation
> 
> The ability to vote is based on Working Group Membership.  Members may join the Working Group at any time and there's no distinction between new and old members when it comes to voting.  Do I have that right?  Are members those individuals currently listed as participants on the TPWG website?  Finally, the Working Group charter does not address whether or not invited experts may vote.  Can you please clarify that as well?
> 
> Please forgive this very long email post.  The goal here is transparency both around the process and how procedures are developed.  Thank you in advance for your  assistance.  I am looking forward to working with you and all of the participants in the TPWG. 
> 
> Marc 
> 
>  
> 
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 01:55:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:27 UTC