Re: Chair's comment on charter renewal objection

Thanks Thomas. I recognize that I'm not as immersed in the ruleset of the
W3C as others, but I have trouble understanding the characterization of
the extension as appropriate under these circumstances. If W3C management
was going to extend the charter regardless of feedback from TPWG members,
you might have considered telling us this when the concerns were
communicated to you prior to the extension. Similarly, the notion that
somehow the November workshop was the w3C designated venue to provide that
feedback borders on the preposterous.

And while its certainly helpful to have recent clarification around
browser UI, it doesn't change the fact that the UI issue was repeatedly
used to stifle productive discussions over the past 18 months.

Extension of the charter under these circumstances may very well have been
within W3C rules --- was it the right thing to do? Well... that's a
different story altogether.


On 3/7/13 10:05 AM, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org> wrote:

>On 2013-03-05, at 18:42 +0100, Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net> wrote:
>
>> I would like to comment briefly on the filing by Alan Chapell objecting
>>to extension of the time line for the Working Group.
>
>Thanks, Peter.
>
>I wanted to add some additional context.
>
>The recent extension of the Tracking Protection Working Groupıs charter
>was a Directorıs decision.  As is true for many Directorıs decisions that
>concern operational matters of the W3C process, WG extensions are usually
>delegated to the W3C management team, where the discussion is typically
>driven by the responsible Domain Leader.  That happens about once a
>month, sometimes more often.
>
>
>There are three pieces Iıd like to discuss.
>
>1. The appeal is against the specific decision to extend the TPWGıs
>charter without change to its scope. That extension decision was
>appropriate and followed the Process. However, communication around the
>extension was handled poorly.
>
>2. The decision to extend the Working Group in no way precludes Advisory
>Committee members from having conversations about the scope and charter.
>
>3. I'd like to recall the actual charter language around User Interface.
>
>
>
>
>1. The appeal
>
>An Advisory Committee representative may always appeal a decision to
>extend a Working Group charter.  In this case, the specific decision that
>Alan Chapell seeks to overturn is the extension of the Tracking
>Protection Working Group announced to the AC on 12 February 2013, and to
>stop the work of this group.
>
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2013JanMar/0030.html
>http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#ReviewAppeal
>http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#charter-extension
>
>While the way in which the decision was communicated was more than
>unfortunate -- my apologies, again, for that mistake --, the decision
>that Alan Chapell seeks to overturn was appropriate.
>
>For context: Working Group extensions happen frequently (more than weıd
>like, in fact -- roughly once a month). When groups have not yet
>successfully concluded their deliverables, as is the case here, it is
>typically ill-advised to extend the scope of a charter by adding new
>deliverables or further contentious topics to the scope.
>
>In the specific context, the decision was made shortly after a change in
>co-chair of the TPWG:  In late November, we had announced Peter Swire's
>appointment as co-chair with buy-in and public support from a broad range
>of stakeholders:
>	http://www.w3.org/News/2012#entry-9638
>	http://www.w3.org/2012/11/tpwg-quotes
>
>Swireıs first activity was an intense round of outreach to participants
>in the group in one-on-one meetings, including discussion of plans for
>next steps in the WG, and including conversations about timelines.
>
>Given the appointment of a new co-chair who was ramping up to drive the
>Working Group toward consensus, it was appropriate for the W3C management
>team -- acting on behalf of the Director -- to extend the duration of the
>TPWG charter as-is, based on the Working Group Chairsı best available
>estimates about the groupıs schedule.
>
>
>2. Opportunities for discussion of charter and scope
>
>Alan Chapellıs appeal concludes with the request ³that further TPWG work
>cease until such time as a discussion of the charter of the group may be
>facilitated by W3C leadership.²
>
>The decision to extend the Working Group without change to the charter in
>no way precludes discussion about the charter and scope among the
>Membership. AC representatives may discuss scope changes on the
>w3c-ac-forum mailing list at any time.
>
>Additionally, we made a specific mailing list available last Friday:
>	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Mar/0000.html
>
>That mailing list would be a good place for a publicly-archived
>conversation about potential scope changes among interested parties.
>
>
>3. User interface
>
>Some of the conversation around the charter have been along the line of
>"user interface is out of scope".  It's worth reviewing the charter's
>actual language, as that's more nuanced:
>
>> While guidelines that define the user experience or user interface may
>>be useful (and within scope), the Working Group will not specify the
>>exact presentation to the user.
>
>http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter.html
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 15:01:05 UTC