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

Re: ISSUE-28: MRC presentation

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:16:29 -0400
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCB959E2.25045%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by this exchange, Walter. My use of the
term colonoscopy was perhaps too colorful. So, I'll clarify.

Over the past 18 months, many on this list have continuously asked for
more and more information regarding 'industry' practices while repeatedly
refusing to respond to in-kind requests. Its become tiresome and
unproductive. The demand for an in-depth analysis of MRC while refusing to
spend time evaluating the consequences of this group's output (e.g.,
whether it will actually benefit consumers, whether it furthers anyone's
privacy interests) seems out of balance to me.

Do you disagree? I'd love to hear your thoughts...





On 11/2/12 11:04 AM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 11/2/12 3:50 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> I'm proposing that we evaluate the consequences of our actions, and
>> you're saying there's no time for that  but there IS time to conduct
>> a coloscopy on a group that has at best a minor impact on this group's
>> work. 
>
>MRC guidelines were brought up as a ground for data collection and
>retention and further questions were deflected towards MRC. It therefore
>makes sense to aks MRC for clarification, per this suggestion of the
>DAA. It also stands to reason, given the confusion of at least one
>former MRC board member in this group about the MRC's own mandate, to
>ask independent experts about the MRC's role and practices.
>
>Your comparison with a colonoscopy is baffling and not constructive,
>unless you are suggesting the MRC people suffer from extreme forms of
>stage fright.
>
>In light of this exchange I am starting to lean towards Roy's opinion
>that this is a waste of time. The standard will be equally fine without
>any mention of collection and retention for self-regulatory purposes at
>all.
>
>Regards,
>
> Walter
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 15:17:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC