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

RE: ISSUE-153 Consensus

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:19:24 +0000
To: "'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>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C35111A7868@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>
My proposal per the process included exactly that "there is no change to the existing text". See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0106.html

Since the first of my two proposal was effectively Option A, the chairs requested that we remove it in place of Option A and I agreed. So Option A is my current proposal.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan

From: Jack L. Hobaugh Jr [mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:52 AM
To: Justin Brookman
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: ISSUE-153 Consensus

Justin,

Thank you for your response.

Respectfully, I still see an issue with the way Option A is worded.  Option A is presented as Editors' Draft Text as opposed to a proposal from TPWG participants to not change the Editors' Draft Text.

Arguably, Editors' Draft Text carries with it more weight than a proposal (from a subset of TPWG participants) not to change the draft text.

As with all surveys, the presentation of the question is important.  If the survey question is not presented properly, it can lead to Response Bias.

I believe that the way Option A is currently presented could cause a response bias against Option B.

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 29, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org<mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org>> wrote:


If you support Option B, then you should object to Option A as it does not include the extra sentence that you want.  In any event, if you inadvertently enter your objections in the wrong place, we will nevertheless consider the substance of your arguments on their merits.

Justin Brookman
Director, Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy & Technology
tel 202.407.8812
justin@cdt.org<mailto:justin@cdt.org>
http://www.cdt.org<http://www.cdt.org/>
@JustinBrookman
@CenDemTech

On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:55 PM, Jack Hobaugh <jack@networkadvertising.org<mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>> wrote:


Hi Ninja,

Thank you for your quick reply.

I don't want to speak for Brooks, but I do believe there is a difference between objecting to "no change" to existing text and objecting to the existing text.  Unfortunately, the way Option A is currently worded, an objection against Option A would be an objection against the existing text and not an objection against not changing the existing text.

2. Objections to Option A: editors' draft text

Option A: editors' draft text

If I object to Option A, as it is worded, I would be objecting against the editors' draft text.  Based on today's email conversation, it would be clearer if Option A was succinctly stated as "no change to the editors' draft text" if indeed that proposal is valid.

In other words, if I favored Option B, which only ads text to the editor's draft text("Add to current language"), I would be left without an objection, because I cannot object to the editors' draft text as that text is also included in Option B.

Best regards,

Jack




On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org<mailto:ninja@w3.org>> wrote:
Brooks,

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.

Ninja

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<tel:678%20580%202683> | (Mob) 678 492 1662<tel:678%20492%201662> | kbmg.com<http://kbmg.com/>
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com<http://brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com/>

<Mail Attachment.png>

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<tel: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<tel:202-347-5341> | jack@networkadvertising.org<mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>










--
Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior Director of Technology
1620 Eye St. NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20006
P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org<mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 18:20:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:42 UTC