W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Chair's comment on charter renewal objection

From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:45:15 -0500
Message-ID: <5137F12B.6070305@w3.org>
To: ifette@google.com
CC: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>, Tracking Protection Working Group <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 3/6/2013 7:59 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) 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?

In the case of an appeal by an AC Representative, W3C Process requires
that we provide a Member-visible archive of comments from the Advisory
Committee.  As this step of the appeal does not require a yes/no
response but only a single "I support the appeal" response(*), my
rationale was that it was easier for those who wish to express support
of the appeal to hit 'reply' to follow links to a Web questionnaire.


(*) this is not meant to discourage any relevant comments or discussion
within the Advisory Committee.

> 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
> <mailto: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
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 01:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC