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: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 01:02:33 +0200
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-ID: <1468640.GYbsg9hzqp@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Alan, 

please do not drag this into a question of principles. My reaction 
was tied to a known technique of argumentation used by Shane towards 
Aleecia consisting of saying "I'm right until proven wrong" while 
offering a difficult proof. And it was a bit too obvious. Shane 
questioned the consensus declared by Aleecia. He said Aleecia should 
come up with evidence that there really was consensus, thus putting 
a burden on Aleecia. This does not have the consequences you 
describe below as it doesn't preclude anything. It is just that if 
you criticize the chair, you owe evidence. 

The art of consensus in W3C has some formal points:
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus

So all this is well defined and we shouldn't redefine it. A Chair 
has triple the amount of work and burden than the usual participant. 
So it is only fair that Shane provides the evidence that there was 
no consensus by pointing us to the appropriate part of the minutes 
or by claiming that some parts are missing in the minutes. If we 
have sustained opposition, the Chairs will re-consider their 
decision. But it is also clear that we can not re-open all the 
issues all the time, because this would lead to no end. This is all 
a social process that is rather open and flexible. The chairs will 
not be able to close an issue if half the group is up in arms.

As I said, it is just to protect the chairs, not to supress 
opinions. I maintain that ISSUE-45 is not the right place to discuss 
the issue of multiple policies and regimes. It doesn't mean we 
shouldn't discuss this. My personal opinion (technically not sound) 
was expressed many times. Let us open a separate thread for it. 
Aleecia IMHO just wanted to stop wasting our time because this issue 
was already discussed so many times and always ended up saying, no, 
DNT isn't the right thing to do that. (for various reasons)

Note that if you do not agree with a decision of the Chairs, you can 
always appeal to the Director and make your arguments. So there is 
no fatality whatsoever. But killing the Chair by saying "provide 
proof for every assertion you make" is not an option either. It 
would just force us into giant red-tape process known from de-jure 
standardization (this is my third leg in W3C, I can explain that to 
you by phone)

Hope that reassures you

Rigo




On Friday 07 September 2012 15:35:32 Alan Chapell wrote:
> 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 23:03:04 UTC

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