- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:15:32 -0500
- To: Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 2012-02-10, at 09:29 -0500, Matthias Schunter wrote: > I agree that we have to aim at wide implementation: A standard that is > not implemented does not add much privacy for real life individuals ;-) > > If we perceive that for a certain issue no consensus evolves then we > decided in Brussels that the chairs are then permitted to propose a > resolution once all sides have documented their positions in writing. … by choosing among the proposals before the group, and based on the information before the group and the chairs at that stage. > From my perspective, all sides are moving towards a consensus on all > issues. > > If this perception is wrong, please pinpoint the issue to resolve and > the competing text proposals that do not evolve towards a consensus. > Aleecia and I can then examine these issues and drive them towards a > solution. +1 We talked process in Brussels. We are now approaching the time to actually apply that process to a number of key issues. If we end up in a situation in which we have just one proposal on the table that everybody can live with, then that is great. If we end up in a situation in which we have several competing proposals, then we ought to go ahead and apply the process that we agreed on in Brussels. As an aside, part of that process is to carefully examine the impact of the decisions we make. It would be great if even the discussion leading up to the actual decision process were framed in terms of that impact — which can include well-reasoned input about the impact of the regulatory environment on this work.
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 15:15:42 UTC