Re: Chair's comment on charter renewal objection

John,

Quick version is that each company who is a member of the W3C has a single
representative (and vote) in the "advisory committee". Note that we are not
talking about the subset of member companies who participate in this
working group, but rather all companies who are members of the W3C.

-Ian


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:18 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> As an outside "invited expert" to the Tracking Protection Working Group I
> am perhaps not as familiar with the W3C process as others.  Could someone
> please tell me who is on the Advisory Committee that is being polled about
> the charter?
>
> Thank you,
> John
>
> ---------
> John M. Simpson
> Privacy Project Director
> Consumer Watchdog
> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
> Santa Monica, CA, 90405
> Tel: 310-392-7041
> Cell: 310-292-1902
> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ralph,
>
> Can you perhaps comment on why support for this objection is being
> solicited in the form of emails to ac-forum rather than as a poll? Is this
> common?
>
> Peter,
>
> Regardless of what happens with the formal appeal now making its way
> through the process, I would encourage you to take it not as a personal
> slight but rather a manifestation of a long-standing concern that has been
> raised repeatedly within the group and underlies many of the discussions
> the group has had and continues to have. I understand the desire to make
> speedy progress towards a tangible result, but if people don't agree in
> which direction we should be running it's unlikely we'll arrive at the
> finish line as a group.
>
> -Ian (as an individual)
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Peter wrote on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:42:05 -0800
>> ...
>> > Since Boston, we are working each week on text and specific action
>> items.  I have contemplated narrowing the range of outstanding issues to
>> get us to a good place ­ a realistic goal at the next face-to-face of
>> having good text on each of the issues.  With the normal clean-up of
>> wording, that puts us in the June/July time frame for Last Call, as
>> contemplated in the new schedule.  The subsequent stages, as I understand
>> it, are standard periods for receiving public comments, etc.
>> >
>> > This June/July timeframe is the exact schedule I spoke of with many of
>> you when I agreed to come on board on the first place.  It is this
>> timeframe to which we are working; and it is to this timeframe that I am
>> devoting my full efforts this spring semester when I have no teaching
>> obligations.
>>
>> And I thank you very much for that, Peter.
>>
>> >
>> > Mr. Chapell's "request that further TPWG work cease" on all other
>> issues is not the way to proceed.  The W3C will address his point
>> separately.  We have work to do.  Let¹s do it on the timetable that we
>> contemplated when I came aboard.
>>
>> W3C Process allows appeal of a Director's decision by an Advisory
>> Committee representative.  I have been appointed by the Director to
>> handle the processing of this appeal.  I have informed the Advisory
>> Committee that we have received the appeal.  W3C Process requires that
>> if 5% of the Advisory Committee support the appeal we then conduct a
>> vote of the Advisory Committee on whether the decision to extend the
>> charter is approved or rejected.
>>
>> The Advisory Committee has until 23:59 UTC next Tuesday to provide its
>> input concerning the appeal.  I have no issue with the Working Group
>> continuing with its deliberations while this appeal process progresses.
>>
>> Thank you for all your work on behalf of the Web Community.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ralph Swick, W3C COO
>>
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>>
>>
>
>