Re: "What Base Text to Use for the Do Not Track Compliance Specification"

Hi Peter,

On Jul 15, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Peter Swire wrote:

> To the Working Group:
>  
>             Attached please find a document entitled “What Base Text to Use for the Do Not Track Compliance Specification.”  For tonight, the document will speak for itself.
> 
> 	   It is available at: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/2013-july-decision/

Since I was on vacation, I was unable to respond to the initial
request for a call.

You state that "As previously noted, this decision also substantially affects ISSUE 5 (tracking), 16 (definition of collection, etc.), 188 (unique identifiers), and 191 (de-identification).  Having considered the points above, we will not accept change proposals that are merely re-statements of these elements from the DAA proposal."

Please note that the WG was not asked to approve the text in the
June draft, nor were we asked to identify specific text within the
June draft for which objections clearly already exist, nor is
the June draft a product of the WG (it has not yet been published
as a working draft).  We were asked to choose which base upon
which the existing and future change proposals will be applied.
As such, change proposals to the June draft have the same standing
as the June draft itself, which is an editors' draft subject to WG
publication approval.  No decisions have been made regarding
those change proposals aside from the specific text proposed
in issue 215.

The chairs have no ability to accept or deny change proposals --
those have to be accepted and recorded according to W3C process,
even after a formal decision has been made.

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

The chairs might very well want to limit debate on issues that
have already been discussed, and maybe even call for consensus
on the actual text (as opposed to which editorial procedure we
will be following).  It is reasonable to say that the combination
of changes suggested in the DAA proposal have been adequately
considered.  However, it is not reasonable to say that they
have been considered individually if the text happens to make
sense in isolation regarding a single issue.  You are free to
copy and paste your rationale for future decisions, but you
are not free to limit the options that the group considers
when making a decision, just as you are not free to compose
a new editors' draft and publish it as a WD without asking
for a decision by the group.

It might thus be wise to ask the WG for permission to publish
the June draft as a WD before continuing further.

However, in order to close the issues above, we actually have
to make a WG decision on those issues (not issue 215), and you
cannot artificially constrain the choice of text alternatives
to only those the chairs think are new.  They are still valid
proposals if anyone (even non-WG members) address them to a
specific issue in a way that does not conflict with issue 215,
and the WG still has to record their receipt and provide
rationale for not adopting them (within each specific issue).
It is only after the WG has agreed to close an issue
that you can choose to ignore proposed text alternatives
that have not provided any new information that might cause
the group to reconsider the prior decision.

I understand the desire to speed progress, but there is no
reason (aside from bandwidth and text dependencies) that we
cannot address substantive issues in parallel.  Having the
chairs make selective choices about which alternatives to
include in the latest editorial draft is not, in my opinion,
improving our progress toward a consensus to publish, let alone
a consensus for last call.  We should instead be addressing
issues in the order required to resolve the underlying
definitions of tracking, and then proceed to make the
decisions on issues that require use of those terms.

I eagerly look forward to having the WG record text decisions
on substantive issues in light of the comments received.

Cheers,

....Roy T. Fielding, Senior Principal Scientist, Adobe