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

Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:08:21 -0400
Message-ID: <504A5435.6070809@networkadvertising.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
CC: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Also sorry for piling on, but to put it slightly differently, my 
understanding has been that much language in the spec has been 
provisionally passed as strawman text, to be reconsidered in light of 
future work. Given the  non-linear route we've taken to developing the 
spec, this seems like a necessity. I'd be shocked to hear now that text 
that was not objected to in the past, in the interest of letting the 
process move along, but with an understanding that it could be revisited 
later, is now locked down.

-David

On 9/7/12 3:53 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> Apologies for piling on, but this same issue of 'future decisions changing past context' has me trying to understand how this impacts the Formal Objection process.  My current understanding is that the co-chairs are attempting to vet Formal Objections in-line with discussions/decisions and will not offer an opportunity to do this once the full context of the standard is available for review.  If this is true, I'd like to log a formal objection to the formal objection process as I don't see how it's possible to object to a singular item without full context or related and/or dependent definitions.  I would also recommend a full month be added to released calendar to handle formal objections as I expect there could several thornier ones to manage through as a working group.
>
> Thank you,
> - Shane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:36 PM
> To: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org
> Cc: Shane Wiley; Aleecia M. McDonald
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment
>
> Hi Rigo -
>
> I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by your response. I recognize and applaud the tremendous work that Aleecia and Matthias have undertaken as part of these proceedings.
>
> However, if you're making the assertion that a W3C chair can take the temperature of the room and just 'decide' consensus on an issue without a requirement of documentation of such consensus, you are at grave risk of delegitimizing the W3C process and the output of our work here. If you're asking Shane to offer proof that the "feeling in the room" is different than Aleeica's recollection, I'm sort of left scratching my head how one might do this.
>
> As I would hope you'd agree, we're radically changing the way the internet works here. If our stated goal is to operate by group consensus, then it would seem reasonable (not to mention beneficial for the legitimacy of our
> output) to require that such consensus be documented and not left to whimsy. If the issue was discussed, and the group's consensus was XXXX, then its up to the group to document that consensus - or else, why bother to document anything in IRC?
>
> On a related note, there's been a few emails regarding the re-opening of old issues. And from what I gather, there is a strong resistance to re-opening issues on the part of the co-chairs and others. I can certainly understand some level of resistance - as its difficult to move forward if we're going back and revisiting old issues. That said, I'd like to point out that many issues have been 'closed' without fully defining key terms such as TRACKING. And as I (and others) have consistently pointed out, where there are issues that are dependent upon a complete understanding of key terms, I reserve the right to look to re-open those issues. If the W3C is telling me that you will be unwilling to re-open these issues, then I think we're all in for a challenging time at the next face to face meetings.
>
>
> If you can provide additional guidance here, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Alan Chapell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/6/12 4:44 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Shane,
>>
>> please do not overburden the chair. In W3C the Chair asserts consensus.
>> This may be a feeling in the room. If you disagree, please provide
>> evidence that the Chair was wrong assuming consensus.
>> You may find such evidence in the meeting minutes or on the mailing
>> list.
>>
>> This doesn't say who is right or wrong, but Chairs are vulnerable and
>> exposed in the W3C Process and we have to protect them.
>>
>> Rigo
>>
>> On Thursday 06 September 2012 11:24:12 Shane Wiley wrote:
>>> I was in Seattle and don't remember us truly considering this option
>>> if you're referring to your exercise of walking the working group
>>> through alternatives if the W3C DNT standard was not completed - is
>>> that what you're referring to?  Could you please help me find the
>>> section in the meeting notes that you feel was a fair "group
>>> consideration and rejection" of this concept?
>>>
>>> Failing that, I believe this is a NEW and VALID issue for the group
>>> to discuss and consider (and either accept or reject).
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 20:08:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:33 UTC