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

Re: W3C TPWG Process Follow UP

From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:53:35 -0700
To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <049b01cd1365$c97f4c00$5c7de400$@otalliance.org>
I would like to echo Marc's comments.  For many of the DNT stakeholders, the
voting and consensus building process can appear confusing and at time
conflicting.  While this is not unique to W3C, this can occur with any
standards body or multi-stakeholder initiative.  A simple outline would
provide clarity and reduce the risk of debate at the 11th hour.  
 
From: Marc Groman <mgroman@networkadvertising.org
<mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org?Subject=Re%3A%20W3C%20TPWG%20Process%
20Follow%20UP&In-Reply-To=%253C012C0C7A-750B-456F-8B0B-BF030CD0F98E%40networ
kadvertising.org%253E&References=%253C012C0C7A-750B-456F-8B0B-BF030CD0F98E%4
0networkadvertising.org%253E> >
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 21:52:18 -0400
Message-Id: <012C0C7A-750B-456F-8B0B-BF030CD0F98E@networkadvertising.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20W3C%20TPWG%20Process%20Follow
%20UP&In-Reply-To=%253C012C0C7A-750B-456F-8B0B-BF030CD0F98E%40networkadverti
sing.org%253E&References=%253C012C0C7A-750B-456F-8B0B-BF030CD0F98E%40network
advertising.org%253E> 
> 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 
> 
>  
> 

 

 

Craig D. Spiezle

Executive Director & President

Online Trust Alliance

https://otalliance.org <https://otalliance.org/> 

425-455-7400

skype Craigspi

 

Description: OTAlogo150

 

Notice: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are
intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. Any unauthorized use, printing, saving, copying,
disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and
delete all copies.

 






image001.gif
(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 19:54:04 UTC

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