Re: Marking the last call deadline

Colleagues,

As was made crystal clear in Jonathan Mayer's letter resigning from the Working Group and EFF's just expressed concerns  posted to the list, it had been consistently the stated position of the Co-chairs and W3C staff that July 31 is the Last Call deadline, and that extending it would require an "affirmative decision" of the Working Group. At least it was until last week's call.

We have failed to have that discussion or make a formal decision. Last week's call was a debacle and there was a complete failure to outline a realistic way forward that would produce a specification in a reasonable period of time.  There are at least 20 outstanding issues against the "June draft."  Under the rules outlined on the call even more amendments are likely.  If one issue a week is resolved, which is optimistic at best and considering the inevitable slowing of deliberations during the holidays, it would be well into next Spring before a Last Call document could possibly be completed.

Consumer Watchdog believes last week's call revealed a process that has become completely dysfunctional. 

We believe the only viable step now is for a formal discussion and consideration of a GO/ NO-GO decision.

Regards,
John

On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Lee Tien <tien@eff.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Tomorrow is July 31.  Since the Sunnyvale face-to-face meeting, it has been EFF's understanding that July 31 is the last call deadline, and that extending it would require an "affirmative decision" of the group.  In a July 23 email to this list, Jonathan documented that this understanding was repeatedly affirmed by the chairs.
> 
>> From the June 19 minutes:
>>> It would take an affirmative decision by the group to extend beyond July 31.
>> From the July 10 minutes:
>>> What I've said before is that we need an affirmative decision by the group about whether to continue after July
>> From the July 15 decision on base text:
>>> Before the end of July, the group will discuss whether and how to proceed in light of the current Last Call deadline scheduled for the end of July.
>> From the July 16 explanatory memorandum:
>>> The work of the group has been shaped by the goal of achieving Last Call by the end of July, or, failing that, to bring enough clarity to the process that the group can assess by the end of July whether and how to proceed.
>>> Before the end of July, the group will discuss whether and how to proceed in light of the current Last Call deadline scheduled for the end of July.
>> 
> 
> EFF further believes that other group members share that understanding.  Accordingly, EFF is extremely disturbed that neither the chairs nor the W3C staff is forthrightly confronting this deadline.  EFF is admittedly unfamiliar with W3C procedure, but the current situation strikes us as at best procedurally irregular and at worst illegitimate.  
> 
> We therefore state for the public record that EFF neither agrees with nor acquiesces in the apparent decision of the chairs and W3C staff to avoid a "go/no go" decision.  
> 
> And yet it is only one of several procedural issues that have arisen since the Sunnyvale meeting, ranging from the very existence and status of the June Draft to the implications of the editors' decision to reject the "industry package proposal."  The July 24 teleconference minutes indicate significant agreement across industry and privacy advocates that the working group's process unclear, perhaps to the point of incoherence.
> 
> Resolving this issue--whether the group should proceed--is critical to EFF's continued participation.  We believe we have been fair and rational advocates for a meaningful privacy-protective DNT standard that meets the basic criteria outlined by the FTC.  
> 
> In our view, avoiding a "go/no go" decision disserves the working group.  It not only changes the procedures midstream but shifts the default.  Requiring an affirmative decision by the group to extend the last call deadline is a radically different decision setting than, in essence, the chairs and W3C staff deciding to extend the deadline and putting the burden on individual members to decide whether they wish to stay.    
> 
> This working group is supposed to produce a last call document by actual consensus, not by default. Whether we can do so depends in turn on a consensus that there is a reasonable path toward consensus.  Our efforts as a group since Sunnyvale have ostensibly been directed toward determining whether that path exists.  
> 
> To be frank, EFF is presently very skeptical that it does.  The June Draft and the industry package proposal are very different, and it's taken a long time to get to this point.  But we are reluctant to unilaterally exit, because so long as there is a group process, we want to be in a position to protect users' privacy.  Other group members may face a similar decision.  
> 
> We also think that avoiding a "go/no go" decision disserves W3C itself.  Consensus is not always possible, and there is no shame in recognizing that after prolonged good-faith efforts.  Attempting to deny such reality, if reality it is, will not help; rather, it damages the legitimacy of the W3C process to reverse a prior understanding clearly communicated by the chairs.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Lee
> 
> -- 
> Lee Tien
> Senior Staff Attorney
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> 815 Eddy Street
> San Francisco, CA 94109
> (415) 436-9333 x 102 (tel)
> (415) 436-9993 (fax)
> tien@eff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2013 00:49:17 UTC