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 01:06:45 +0200
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-ID: <1542184.dAajNBhB8p@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Shane, 

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGAppeals
says 

Individuals who disagree strongly with a decision SHOULD register 
with the Chair any Formal Objections 

pointing to 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection

In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to 
a decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the 
reviewer requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating 
the related decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance a 
technical report). Note: In this document, the term "Formal 
Objection" is used to emphasize this process implication: Formal 
Objections receive Director consideration. The word "objection" used 
alone has ordinary English connotations.

The process is there. We will apply it. This group is light years 
away from the controversy that we know to handle in the HTML Working 
Group.

Rigo

On Friday 07 September 2012 12:53:40 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 23:07:11 UTC

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