Re: Non-editorial change, issue 5

Because the compliance document currently consists of an enormous number of changes made to a draft without the working group's consent and published over the objections of a working group member, without agreement by the working group. That gross violation of process was excused on the basis that the immediate objections would be addressed before publication as a WD.

I have now been lied to three times about the procedure by which this objection would be addressed. I don't care whether you think it is an editorial change or not. There is nothing in our process that says objectionable material cannot be removed because it isn't an editorial change. 

What matters here is that I objected to the change when it was made and the chairs refused to address my objection at that time. To reverse the revert just because of your concern that it might not be editorial in nature is irreconcilable with the w3c process, and reflects the fact that the chairs and the w3c staff are still not interested in adhering to that process.

Hence, TCS is not a product of this working group and will not be referenced as such.

....Roy


> On Oct 2, 2013, at 5:18 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:
> 
> Why is that and how many are there?
> 73s,
> John
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2013, at 5:09 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> 
>> PLEASE NOTE that the next editorial change to TPE will remove all
>> links to the compliance document.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> ....Roy
>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi John,
>>> 
>>> The actual change that Carl was referring to (to revert text change) has been made now:
>>> Commit log: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-commit/2013Oct/0003.html
>>> Editors' Draft: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html
>>> 
>>> I think the chairs might have been a little overoptimistic in this case about how quickly I make edits at their direction. :)
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>>> On October 2, 2013, at 12:58 PM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Carl,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure I follow you.  Doesn't look to me like you've reverted the text to the June Draft definition of tracking. Is that what you meant to do?  It's not reflected in the editors' draft that I'm seeing.
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thank you for pointing out a non-editorial change that we have introduced to the editor's draft.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Our goal was to only do editorial changes at this point and follow due process for all substantive changes.
>>>>>  
>>>>> We have reverted the text and included the text from the April as one change proposal to the corresponding ISSUE-5.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Once the group has found a consensus on ISSUE-5, we will replace the current text with the text that was determined as consensus.
>>>>>  
>>>>> We hope that this resolves your concern.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Carl
>>>>>  
>>>>> For Carl, Matthias, and Justin
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> Carl Cargill
>>>>> Principal Scientist, Standards
>>>>> Adobe Systems
>>>>> Cargill@adobe.com
>>>>> Office: +1 541 488 0040
>>>>> Mobile: +1 650 759 9803
>>>>> @AdobeStandards
>>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/standards
>