Re: ISSUE-153 Consensus

Hi Ninja,

Thank you for your quick reply.

I don't want to speak for Brooks, but I do believe there is a difference
between objecting to "no change" to existing text and objecting to the
existing text.  Unfortunately, the way Option A is currently worded, an
objection against Option A would be an objection against the existing text
and not an objection against not changing the existing text.

2. Objections to Option A: editors' draft text

*Option A: editors' draft text*

If I object to Option A, as it is worded, I would be objecting against the
editors' draft text.  Based on today's email conversation, it would be
clearer if Option A was succinctly stated as "no change to the editors'
draft text" if indeed that proposal is valid.

In other words, if I favored Option B, which only ads text to the editor's
draft text("*Add to current language*"), I would be left without an
objection, because I cannot object to the editors' draft text as that text
is also included in Option B.

Best regards,

Jack





On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org> wrote:

>  Brooks,
>
> not sure if I understand you correctly. But I think you suggest that the
> correct way to put this in the wiki would have been to list the proposal as
> "no change".
> In my opinion listing the actual TPE text that is the competing proposal
> is more readable, if there is only a limited number of proposals.
>
> We usually do not list the supporters of a proposal but just make sure in
> the weekly call that it has considerabe support within the group.
>
> Ninja
>
>
> Am 28.01.14 23:35, schrieb Dobbs, Brooks:
>
>  Justin,
>
>  Wouldn't part of the W3C's requirement that there be at least two
> competing proposals be that there is record of who authored each?  As we
> can assume that there would always be existing text, doesn't the decision
> policy presume that the competition would be against two proposals with
> authors independent of,  or accepting credit for, the existing text if that
> is to be an option?
>
>  -Brooks
>
>
>  --
>
> *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer | *KBM Group* | Part of the
> Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com <http://kbmg.com>*
>
>
>
> *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com <http://brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com> *
> This email - including attachments - may contain confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message.
>
>   From: "Jack L. Hobaugh Jr" <jack@networkadvertising.org>
> Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:04 PM
> To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <
> public-tracking@w3.org>, Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com>, Walter van Holst <
> walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-153 Consensus
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:04 PM
>
>   Hi Justin,
>
>  Thank you for the clarification.
>
>  If there is a valid second proposal, then I respectfully request that it
> be presented as such and adequately articulated along with the
> authors/proponents identified.
>
>  Best regards,
>
>  Jack
>
>
> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr *Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior
> Director of Technology
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi Jack,
>
>  The alternative proposal was the existing text.  It was understanding
> from the January 15th call [1] that at least Sid Stamm and Walter van Holst
> preferred the existing text, and did not want to make the quasi-legal
> assertion that user agents bear joint responsibility for the behavior of
> add-ons.  Moreover, there did not appear to be overwhelming support for the
> new language --- as far as I can tell, only David, Shane, and Brad argued
> for it.  Moreover, Brad did not object to proceed for a Call for Objections
> after the call. [2]
>
>  Sid, Walter, Brad, others, if I am mistaken, please correct me.
>
>  The Call for Objections closes tomorrow.  If they (or others) have no
> objection to the new language, then we will proceed with the additional
> sentence.  Otherwise, we will have to evaluate the relative strength of the
> objections.  If we wanted to just announce closure of the issue at this
> point, we would have to wait two additional weeks anyway to see if there
> were objections to closing by agreement.  We have managed to close some
> issues without a CfO in recent weeks, and I hope we can do more of that!
>  But given that we've already established a firm deadline for obtaining
> feedback on this issue, I'm reluctant to reopen the procedure.
>
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/01/15-dnt-minutes
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Jan/0065.html
>
>  On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Jack L. Hobaugh Jr <
> jack@networkadvertising.org> wrote:
>
>  Dear W3C TPWG Co-Chairs:
>
>  I would like to respectfully suggest that under the posted W3C TPWG
> procedures, consensus regarding ISSUE-153 has already been obtained and
> that a call for objections is not necessary because (1) a call for
> objections requires "two or more competing proposals" and (2) only one
> supported proposal remains on the wiki.
>
>  First, the W3C TPWG procedures require "two or more competing proposals"
> for a call for objections.
>  4. Call for objections If two or more competing proposals exist for an
> issue and the chairs conclude that further discussion on the proposals will
> not change existing positions, the chairs may conduct an electronic straw
> poll to call for objections to each of the presented proposals.
> Participants should express their objections to each proposal with clear
> and specific reasoning.
> (found at http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/decision-policy.html
> .)
>
>  Second, at one time there may have been competing proposals, but as it
> stands now there appears to be only one proposal (Singer/Kulick) that has
> been officially submitted.
> (See
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_limitations_for_add-ons.)
>
>  I do not see any evidence on the wiki of a second supported proposal.
>
>  It appears that no member of the W3C TPWG has submitted a
> counter-proposal against the single proposal submitted by David Singer and
> Brad Kulick.
>
>  And because a call for objections requires "two or more competing
> proposals," it would appear that we are now at consensus and the call for
> objections is not required for a determination of consensus.
>
>  Best regards,
>
>  Jack
>
>
> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr *Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior
> Director of Technology
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

*Jack L. Hobaugh Jr*Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel & Senior
Director of Technology
1620 Eye St. NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20006
P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org