Re: Did the "June Draft" get a vote?

Hi Thomas,

On 06/20/2013 09:40 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Dan,
> the decision is recorded in Peter's summary toward the end of the minutes of yesterday's meeting:
>> peterswire: near end of time. have chair proposal. Considered alternatives, which did not get majority support. so no alternative received more support than w3c proposal.
This last sentence is precisely the reason for my confusion, as it
implies that the chair's proposal was weighed against the others. It
seems that it wasn't, and that Aleecia's proposal -- which I do not
support, but which I believe won a majority (non-consensus) vote -- did
not get requisite support to dislodge the chair's proposal.

It sounds like what Peter intended to say was that without clear
*consensus* favoring an alternative, the chair's way would move forward
regardless of how that fared against other proposals.

I don't want to focus too much on process, as I care way more about
substance and lament how much time we've been taking on process (perhaps
since we've identified big areas of disagreement on substance that have
proven difficult to dislodge). That said, I think it's super important
for the chairs to distinguish "this is a decision the group has made"
from "this is a decision the chairs have made". I'm not trying to be
combative, and perhaps it's a bit nitpicky, but I think we'll all be
happier going forward if this is crystal clear.

As far as the substance of Peter's decision, I am a bit frustrated at
the need for sustained objections, and the fact that someone in the
group may be on a 3 week vacation right now and come back without an
ability to object. But overall I'm happy to go along with it and intend
to propose text changes by next week.

>> peterswire: will have issues you want to raise that will be affirmatively raised in 1 week. Will see on public list. Will look at text. Clarify issues.
> Note that organizing the group's work and decisions is the chair's prerogative and task.  Also note that, per Roy's proposal during the call (which we adopted), the record of previous discussions and issues remains available, as do the previous drafts.
> Thanks,
> Thomas Roessler, W3C <> (@roessler)
> On 2013-06-20, at 12:22 -0400, Dan Auerbach <> wrote:
>> I was actually unsure about whether there was a vote on Peter's proposal
>> since my call was flaky, and so glad the question was asked, and
>> genuinely curious what the outcome of that vote would be. Even though I
>> don't think the voting would be likely to align with my preferred
>> approach, it's nice to get a sense of what folks in the group think.
>> That said, when there are more than 2 possibilities on the table and
>> with a group this size, we are likely to run up against Arrow's
>> impossibility theorem
>> ( when
>> trying to rank them for the group.
>> On 06/19/2013 12:28 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:16 , Jonathan Mayer <> wrote:
>>>> Given that context, I want us to be clear: This new process is not a consensus decision. This new process has not in any way been ratified by the group.
>>> Surprisingly, nor has your position as a chair.
>>> Please tell us what *your* *specific* problems are.  You continue to speak vaguely and globally and from a position of an authority you don't have.
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 18:25:32 UTC