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

Re: TPWG Agenda for the October 16 call (V02)

From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:46:11 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "team-tracking-chairs@w3.org (team-tracking-chairs@w3.org)" <team-tracking-chairs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03B1AB99-6703-4A04-8E13-FC74C5F54803@iab.net>
David, 

Sooooo, are you agreeing with mine and the Chairs' use of the word "vote" or disagreeing, I'm not sure? Please understand, I'm not suggesting that the actual "votes" obtained in the poll should hold any sway over the direction of the Working Group, that would be ludicrous at this point.  It would, however, be helpful to know whether the Chairs have already rendered a decision on the process before we waste more time talking about the results of the poll. 

It's all a moot point anyway, we shouldn't waste more time by entering into a debate to devine the W3C's intended definition of "vote" any more than we should try to wrap our heads around their possible definitions of "consensus", "poll", "invited expert", or "tracking". 

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel, IAB
(202) 253-1466


> On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:29 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Well, the chairs used the word 'vote' to mean the individual responses to a poll.  I read your message as suggesting that those answers would be reckoned towards a group 'vote'. If you didn't mean this, my apologies. If you did, you may be missing a point also.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> wrote:
>> 
>> That's my point, you didn't. You completely missed the point. Thanks though. 
>> 
>> Mike Zaneis
>> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
>> (202) 253-1466
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:11 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> I am not a chair and am not answering questions you addressed to them. I just addressed a slight misapprehension, that's all.
>>> 
>>> Best wishes
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> A quick response:
>>>> 
>>>> Read the email before responding please. My question was, if the chairs have already decided that we are moving forward with the current process (Option 1 from the poll), then why are we wasting time discussing our responses to the poll?
>>>> 
>>>> The stated goal of tomorrow's meeting is to focus "on the recently completed poll and is intended to help the chairs, management team, and the committee more thoroughly understand and appreciate the results.  It is intended to be a brainstorming session in which comments are solicited to help us understand why members voted as they did."  If the Chairs have already determined how the group is to proceed then why have we wasted an entire week discussing this process?  It all seems like a waste of time and disingenuous. 
>>>> 
>>>> Mike Zaneis
>>>> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
>>>> (202) 253-1466
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:48 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just a quick note
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 15:38 , Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the group voted that they did not support the current process,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We weren't voting; we were trying to determine the viable way(s) to move ahead.  (If everyone had said "no confidence, I am out of here", there would have been none).
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Singer
>>>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 01:47:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC