RE: Explanatory Memorandum

Jeff,

I speak only for myself on this point and believe I'm being fairly straight-forward (versus "boggl[ing] the mind").  I'm confused as to why they June Draft was chosen as the base text going forward if BOTH sides of the group (industry and advocates) disagree with the formulation of the June Draft (I don't believe this was appropriately taken into account in the memo of explanation).

After reading all of the objections to the DAA proposal, I don't believe the Chairs should accept the industry proposal "as is" as its clear from many of the comments more clarifying text is required.  That said, it does appear the basis for the tri-state de-identification process (R,Y,G) is sound and provides a possible path forward for industry adoption.

In retrospect, it would have been better to introduce each of the industry proposal elements as stand-alone considerations - we simply ran out of time.  I'm hopeful those elements of the industry proposal that were closer to consensus but require more clarity are still given the opportunity to survive the process.

- Shane

From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:38 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Thomas Roessler; Alan Chapell; public-tracking@w3.org; Peter Swire; Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
Subject: Re: Explanatory Memorandum

Shane:  This is wordplay that boggles the mind.  Is the position of Yahoo that the Chair's should have accepted the Industry proposal?

Is Yahoo disputing the analysis that the chairs did?

Thanks,

Jeff



On Jul 18, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:


Thomas,

I'm confused on the metric for least objection in this context.  If you review the objections in whole, 'industry' collectively objected to the June Draft and 'advocates' collectively objected to the Industry Draft -AND- the June Draft.  In aggregate it would appear the Industry Draft has the LEAST objection.  The memo of explanation constantly quotes this concept of "group decision" when its plainly clear this is not the case based on the evidence.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org<http://w3.org>]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:32 PM
To: Alan Chapell
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; Peter Swire; Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
Subject: Re: Explanatory Memorandum

On 2013-07-18, at 15:41 -0400, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>> wrote:


 Why was the document entitled "What Base Text to Use for the Do Not Track Compliance Specification" ("Decision Document") characterized as a group decision rather than a chair's decision? The Decision Document repeatedly uses the term "group decision." However, a group decision would seem to suggest that WG member votes were tallied, but I don't see votes tabulated anywhere.

The document is correctly characterized as a group decision:  Based on the discussion and the objections received, the chairs identified the path forward that drew the weakest objections, and recorded it as a group decision (as is their task).

Of note, in the W3C process document: "Groups should favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that cause strong objections from a few people."

Also of note: "When the Chair believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group should move on."