Re: Explanatory Memorandum

In fairness, I think it's been pretty clear from the beginning that this was not going to be a "majority wins" or "tallying" exercise.  Otherwise, there would have been a lot of incentive for parties to get the most similar minds to join W3C to raise their hands at the appropriate time. 

Lauren Gelman
@laurengelman
BlurryEdge Strategies
415-627-8512

On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:

> I'm not trying to be flip, I think the process questions below require answers. 
> 
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
> 
> 
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 4:32 PM, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 2013-07-18, at 15:41 -0400, Alan Chapell <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).
>> 
> 
> So objections from virtually the entire universe of companies expected to adopt the standard stating that the June Draft is unimplementable are considered "weak"?  We were told by the head of the W3C that adoption was the primary measure of success for all W3C standards. Seems like a disconnect.   
> 
> 
> 
>> 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."
>> 
> 
> We've already established that the June Draft received objections from advocates and industry alike.  What does the W3C process document say about proposals that cause strong objections from a large majority of 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."
>> 
>> 
> 
> I'm not advocating this decision, but by your standard the Chairs would have no choice but to "move on" from the entire June Draft given the group's collective dissent to it. The issues that exist in the June Draft have been debated for 18 months with little to no progress. For probably a dozen issues the group has "considered the legitimate concerns" of all sides to no resolution. 
> 
> 
>