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: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:35:32 -0400
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>
Message-ID: <CC6FB772.2056D%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
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

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:

>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
>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.
>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 19:36:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:00 UTC