Re: Change proposal: last public working draft

I agree with Aleecia, and already expressed my concern about the one-week raise it or lose it approach by Peter and the W3C staff with the FTC (as well as the key news media).

I think it's irresponsible to the needs of the public--who require much more than what this process has delivered.  

Jeff

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote:

> 
> Peter's draft previews how simple and readable we can get the Compliance document to be once we arrive at consensus. It is great to read a sensible proposal of how things might fit together, and it is a hopeful step that shows we can get to a final recommendation. I hope the notes I sent from the 90 minute call highlighting places not at consensus and places where the language could be made more clear will be of some use.
> 
> We were given a week to flag what we cannot live with in Peter's latest draft. What I cannot live with is the idea that after two and a half years of work, anything we do not re-raise in a one week timeframe will be abruptly wiped out. I continue to have great frustration with the idea that one must have sustained objection every single time or an issue will be dismissed. This is a strange approach. One week is also far too short a time in which to expect people to take on this work. On the call last week, this was a point we had tremendous agreement upon. I am not trying to stall progress, at all, but going through the entirety of multiple documents to think through what small wording changes will change in practice is not a quick, breezy task. We do important work; we should do it well.
> 
> Consequently, I submit the latest public working draft of 30 April 2013, available from
> 
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-compliance/
> 
> Implicit is the suggestion that we look at Peter's draft as another set of alternatives to issues already raised. Given the opportunity to walk through, discuss, and properly consider the issues, it would not shock me to find I support Peter's text over the other alternatives in some (but not all) cases. As we all know, the working draft includes proposals I do not support. But I prefer we actually decide them as a group, and engage the issues. I look forward to doing so.
> 
> 	Aleecia
> 
>