W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: ISSUE-153 Consensus

From: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:05:25 +0100
Message-ID: <52E837B5.5060803@w3.org>
To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com>, Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>

not sure if I understand you correctly. But I think you suggest that the 
correct way to put this in the wiki would have been to list the proposal 
as “no change”.
In my opinion listing the actual TPE text that is the competing proposal 
is more readable, if there is only a limited number of proposals.

We usually do not list the supporters of a proposal but just make sure 
in the weekly call that it has considerabe support within the group.


Am 28.01.14 23:35, schrieb Dobbs, Brooks:
> Justin,
> Wouldn't part of the W3C's requirement that there be at least two 
> competing proposals be that there is record of who authored each?  As 
> we can assume that there would always be existing text, doesn't the 
> decision policy presume that the competition would be against two 
> proposals with authors independent of,  or accepting credit for, the 
> existing text if that is to be an option?
> -Brooks
> -- 
> *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer |*KBM Group* | Part of 
> the Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com*
> _brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
> _
> This email – including attachments – may contain confidential 
> information. If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender 
> immediately and delete the message.
> From: "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org 
> <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:04 PM
> To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org <mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org>>
> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> 
> (public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)" 
> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Sid Stamm 
> <sid@mozilla.com <mailto:sid@mozilla.com>>, Walter van Holst 
> <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl <mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-153 Consensus
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:04 PM
> Hi Justin,
> Thank you for the clarification.
> If there is a valid second proposal, then I respectfully request that 
> it be presented as such and adequately articulated along with the 
> authors/proponents identified.
> Best regards,
> Jack
> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> *Network Advertising Initiative| Counsel & Senior Director of Technology
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341| jack@networkadvertising.org 
> <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org 
> <mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org>> wrote:
>> Hi Jack,
>> The alternative proposal was the existing text.  It was understanding 
>> from the January 15th call [1] that at least Sid Stamm and Walter van 
>> Holst preferred the existing text, and did not want to make the 
>> quasi-legal assertion that user agents bear joint responsibility for 
>> the behavior of add-ons.  Moreover, there did not appear to be 
>> overwhelming support for the new language --- as far as I can tell, 
>> only David, Shane, and Brad argued for it.  Moreover, Brad did not 
>> object to proceed for a Call for Objections after the call. [2]
>> Sid, Walter, Brad, others, if I am mistaken, please correct me.
>> The Call for Objections closes tomorrow.  If they (or others) have no 
>> objection to the new language, then we will proceed with the 
>> additional sentence.  Otherwise, we will have to evaluate the 
>> relative strength of the objections.  If we wanted to just announce 
>> closure of the issue at this point, we would have to wait two 
>> additional weeks anyway to see if there were objections to closing by 
>> agreement.  We have managed to close some issues without a CfO in 
>> recent weeks, and I hope we can do more of that!  But given that 
>> we've already established a firm deadline for obtaining feedback on 
>> this issue, I'm reluctant to reopen the procedure.
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/15-dnt-minutes
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Jan/0065.html
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jack L. Hobaugh Jr 
>> <jack@networkadvertising.org <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>> wrote:
>>> Dear W3C TPWG Co-Chairs:
>>> I would like to respectfully suggest that under the posted W3C TPWG 
>>> procedures, consensus regarding ISSUE-153 has already been obtained 
>>> and that a call for objections is not necessary because (1) a call 
>>> for objections requires “two or more competing proposals” and (2) 
>>> only one supported proposal remains on the wiki.
>>> First, the W3C TPWG procedures require “two or more competing 
>>> proposals" for a call for objections.
>>> 4. Call for objections
>>>     If two or more competing proposals exist for an issue and the
>>>     chairs conclude that further discussion on the proposals will
>>>     not change existing positions, the chairs may conduct an
>>>     electronic straw poll to call for objections to each of the
>>>     presented proposals. Participants should express their
>>>     objections to each proposal with clear and specific reasoning.
>>>     (found at
>>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/decision-policy.html.)
>>> Second, at one time there may have been competing proposals, but as 
>>> it stands now there appears to be only one proposal (Singer/Kulick) 
>>> that has been officially submitted.
>>> (See 
>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_limitations_for_add-ons.)
>>> I do not see any evidence on the wiki of a second supported proposal.
>>> It appears that no member of the W3C TPWG has submitted a 
>>> counter-proposal against the single proposal submitted by David 
>>> Singer and Brad Kulick.
>>> And because a call for objections requires “two or more competing 
>>> proposals,” it would appear that we are now at consensus and the 
>>> call for objections is not required for a determination of consensus.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jack
>>> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
>>> *Network Advertising Initiative| Counsel & Senior Director of 
>>> Technology
>>> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
>>> P: 202-347-5341| jack@networkadvertising.org 
>>> <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 23:06:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:06 UTC