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

Re: alternative to party and outsourcing definitions

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:53:17 -0700
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-Id: <AE66B812-3301-4090-8A1D-7175AE84D5B5@gbiv.com>
To: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Hi Justin,

I agree that this is what you were tasked to do by the chair.

I don't understand why the chair would think that only listing
options from the two most extreme and equally unacceptable
proposals is a rational way to make progress, let alone being
compliant with W3C process, and it should be clear by now that
this strategy has failed to produce consensus text.

It is not necessary for you to evaluate what to do when no one
responds to written text proposals -- just put them in the draft.
If someone (including yourself) does respond, and objects, then
the text can be removed and the author can raise an issue, have
a WG discussion (assuming the agenda isn't being manipulated to
avoid it), and the editors can try various proposals to find a
middle ground, if possible.  Otherwise, the author is left in limbo,
assumes that there are no objections, and expects that the text
will appear in the draft once the editors process the queue of
changes to do.

The only reason you haven't been seeing dozens of WG members
backing my suggested changes is because, to put it bluntly, most
of the WG has been muzzled by repeated personal attacks and
abusive use of the press to mislead the public.  If we need to
organize cheering sections just to get something accomplished,
that will make me even less happy, but hopefully some of the other
WG members will start sending +1s to the public list (instead
of just to my private email box) once they realize that is
being used as a gating function.

....Roy

On Oct 3, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:

> Roy, we do not make changes to the editors' draft whenever one person makes a suggestion --- the spec would have a dozen different options on every substantive issue.  Since Bellevue, we were tasked to draft around the parameters of Shane's draft but to incorporate options from the EFF/Stanford/Mozilla draft --- in fact, those two axes have framed the entire discussion (for better or worse!) since the Washington meeting.  I have tried to incorporate the discussions on the mailing list as well when I thought there was consensus building behind a particular idea, but I had not perceived a lot of popular support for your personal opinions --- I could well be wrong about that.  FWIW, I specifically called our your suggested language on parties today as a potential path forward (though I still am not sure anyone else supports or how much substantive difference I see between it and some of the existing options).
> 
> I am not saying your opinions are wrong.  I am saying that as a scribe I am not entirely sure what to do when one person makes a suggestion and no one else echoes it or otherwise responds.  In general, I am never sure how to capture the incredibly detailed discussions on the mailing list that do not end up with a definitive conclusion.  In other instances, we have been criticized for adding language to the draft that is not at consensus.  If the answer is to include your texts as options to be considered coming out of this meeting, I personally have no objection.
> Justin Brookman
> Director, Consumer Privacy
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> tel 202.407.8812
> fax 202.637.0969
> justin@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org
> @CenDemTech
> @JustinBrookman
> On 10/3/2012 5:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
>> 
>>> You've made it clear on a number of occasions that Adobe, one of the largest service providers on the web, wants: 1) to be treated as a first party, and 2) to not have to identify itself as a service provider.  Please don't bury those views in a critique of drafting.
>> 
>> The fact that Adobe knows more about how to implement siloed
>> service provision than anyone else in the group should be
>> looked on as an asset.  Instead, you choose to act the troll.
>> If you have a problem with the text that I proposed, then
>> address it -- not my employer.
>> 
>> During the meeting, I posted on IRC links to just a few of the
>> messages I have sent to the mailing list, some 5-6 months ago,
>> that still have not been addressed by the Compliance editors.
>> The job of the editors is to propose text that attempts to
>> resolve outstanding objections and to remove text that clearly
>> has no such resolution.  I don't think it should be necessary
>> for me to repeat myself over and over and over again.
>> 
>> Aleecia asked me a few weeks ago to write something as a
>> suggested replacement for the party definitions, since I have
>> commented many times that they are wrong (in both DC and
>> Bellevue, and in several calls before and since).
>> So, I did that.  It would be nice if these issues were
>> actually addressed by substantive changes to the draft,
>> rather than wait another three months for the exact same
>> discussion to occur again.
>> 
>> ....Roy
>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 22:53:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:35 UTC