See also: IRC log
<Walter> hi aleecia
<aleecia> good morning, Walter!
<Walter> almost evening here, but a good morning to you too
<aleecia> good evening, too. We could do the Truman show bit
<rigo> wrong window :)
<aleecia> (I'd been addressing Walter pointing out I'd wished him a good morning when it is evening for him)
<aleecia> right -- context was just before you joined IRC
<Walter> Zakim: code?
<BrendanIAB> Don't worry Aleecia, I keep track of IRC when I call in!
<aleecia> (1) please mute
<Walter> Zakim: +31.65.141.aadd is probably Walter
<aleecia> (2) if you're not associated with your number, please do so
<rigo> Walter, do you call in via sip or skype?
<rvaneijk> Walter, +31 is me
<Walter> rvaneijk: sorry
<aleecia> presumably IPcaller is Walter, then?
<rigo> yep :)
<aleecia> thanks, Rigo
<Walter> I guess, so
<aleecia> Please mute :-)
<aleecia> Good morning, Nick. Zakim's in goldfish mode
<aleecia> We're all set up
<aleecia> thanks, david!
<jchester2> zakin, mute me
<damiano> npdoty, not sure.
<damiano> I'm calling from a google
<aleecia> alan, can you scribe?
<jchester2> Count me in next week, as I have to leave meeting mid-way.
<Chapell> sorry - not in a great phone place
<aleecia> noted, thanks
<Walter> aleecia: I'd love to, but my sound quality is rather poor
<Walter> and so is my internet connection
<npdoty> scribenick: susanisrael
<npdoty> jeffwilson will help on scribing
<Chapell> zakim aaqq is chapell
susan israel joined from 215.... and is scribing
aleecia: most of agenda today is
re: action items, not a lot of prep needed
... overdue items--5 have dropped off, not sure which
<trackbot> ACTION-321 -- Thomas Lowenthal to set up a call about discussing singer's list of questions about what information is needed in response headers and status resource -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN
first action 321: there was a phone call last week to address david's questions. Tl not on call but will ask for link to summary of last week's call
aleecia: 3 actions we have started but not finished
<npdoty> we did have that call, a nice quick chat
<trackbot> ACTION-255 -- Alan Chapell to work on financial reporting text (with nick, ian) as alternative to legal requirements -- due 2012-09-19 -- OPEN
<Brooks> 678 580 aaxx is Brooks
aleecia: alan was going to revise text on financial reporting. right? or does original text stand?
<Chapell> Nick has taken the lead - and suggested some text that I think is promising
<npdoty> I followed up with some suggestions for Alan, but haven't sent to the full list
alan says on irc that nick has tacken lead
aleecia: one more week?
<Chapell> Nick - lets send around
nick? should i send around language to full list? alan - yes, aleecia: alan is still owner
<Chapell> sounds good
<npdoty> Chapell, send around to the full list now? I can do that just after this call then
<jeffwilson> aleecia: alan remains owner of 255, nick will assist
<npdoty> action-255 due 10-18
<trackbot> ACTION-255 Work on financial reporting text (with nick, ian) as alternative to legal requirements due date now 10-18
aleecia: plus 1 week for action 255-nick update actions as we go? nick yes
<trackbot> ACTION-246 -- David Wainberg to draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment (with Alan, Ian) -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> ACTION-246 -- David Wainberg to draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment (with Alan, Ian) -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
aleecia: action 246 the most
contentious thing on call-originally was david wainberg's re
public commitment re: dnt....
... has turned into discussion of how to have multiple flavors of dnt.
... problem is the content, not that topic has changed
<Chapell> I can't hear Aleecia
<WileyS> Aleecia - I don't believe its fair to call it "multiple flavors of DNT" and injects bias into your point of view. Could we please choose a more neutral phrasing to be fair to the group.
<jeffwilson> aleecia: 246 is problematic because it contemplates UI and general purpose tool
<Chris_IAB> Only able to join IRC today as I'm in flight
david wainberg: would disagree that this has departed from original purpose, to help companies make commitments about compliance, and don't think it's a general purpose tool
<WileyS> +1 to David
<Chapell> +1 to David
[aleecia had said we can't create general purpose tool]
<jeffwilson> dwainberg: disagree with aleecia that 246 creates an issue via general purpose tool
<rigo> WileyS, I think this is not possible with this protocol and I said that on the mailing list
<WileyS> This isn't general purpose. Discussion of data retention and unlinkability are clearly "general purpose"
aleecia: idea was to say this is what you must do to comply w dnt, but this is moving into general purpose of saying this is what we are doing
<Chapell> Aleecia - can you explain how this violates the charter
<Chapell> i'm not following
<WileyS> Rigo, understood but I disagree with your point of view
aleecia: have walked up to that line before.....but here we are saying we don't know what outcomes will be...
<WileyS> Who is the heavy breather on the call?
<Walter> Zakim: mute Walter
shane: disagree that this is against charter of working group., what is process to make that determination? this is not general purpose but related to small number of compliance standards
<Chapell> +1 to Shane
shane: ....these other standards are well known and have long history. 50% of working group disagrees with your decision that this violates charger
<Chris_IAB> Charter also says that we wont create a complex solution; based on that, its seems we are way out of charter in general
<WileyS> Rigo - please put your Legal cap on for this discussion
<fielding> The charter says "The Working Group will not design mechanisms for the expression of complex or general-purpose policy statements."
rigo: i hate charter discussions and discussions of charter violations. these will be assessed when we move from last call to candidate recommendation
rigo: at end of day if we produce document that does not comply with charter then we will be put back into working draft. pls refrain from charter discussions.
<Chris_IAB> Good point Roy-- as I pointed out in Amsterdam, the current approach is nothing but complex (on all sides)
rigo: made point that we have discussed before and have not made progress so pls respect that. can argue that this is about meaning of w3c but these arguments are kind of virtual
<WileyS> Rigo - the question is how do we arrive at a decision? Aleecia is blocking the discussion as it being out of the charter - we want the discussion to continue as you've pointed out.
<Chapell> johnsimpson, sorry john tried to help (:
aleecia: i think the way this happens is that if we have consensus to move forward with david wainbergs proposal then we put into spec and we may be told when doc is reviewed that we can't move forward
<Chris_IAB> "aayyy" is Johnsimpson with DNT enabled? ;)
<Chapell> Aleecia, I'm not sure I understand the rationale - can you please explain again?
aleecia: or we could move forward with different proposals for how to comply with dnt, then file formal objection and that gets evaluated at last call. rigo, correct?
<eberkower> bbaa = eberkower
<Chapell> ... some of the problem was the background noise
<WileyS> Aleecia - so you're suggesting we move to a poll (path of least objection)?
<johnsimpson> Thanks, Nick
<fielding> My opinion is that the charter is specifically referring to something like P3P. An expression of which compliance standards are being applied (a simple array of token strings) is not a complex expression and not forbidden by charter. That doesn't mean it is a good idea.
rigo: we hvae discussion and if no sustained opposition then we move forward. I htink there is sustained opposition but that's up to chairs
<WileyS> Works for me - thank you.
aleecia: am suggesting we do that so you can bring up any of your concerns to director. rather than take hard line that this is irrelevant
<WileyS> Aleecia - that was the important element to me - that the conversation be able to happen and not be blocked up front due to an assessment of "out of charter"
aleecia: unfortunately i think we spend a lot of time on this, but i think that's the way we do it.
npdoty: no need for deep discussion. one suggestion i have heard is that this issue may be more or less important depending on results of compliance document so maybe we come back to it.
aleecia: interesting, how many agree?
<Chris_IAB> agree with?
aleecia: how many think they support dwainberg proposal and whether they do may depend on outcome of compliance document
<Chapell> I agree with David W re: flag
<npdoty> are there people who agree that they generally support dwainberg's proposal, but think we might differ depending on the outcome of the Compliance spec?
<Brooks> Agree with David
<WileyS> If outcome equals DAA Code of Conduct then I'd change my mind - otherwise we should keep this discussion alive
<npdoty> (just a suggestion)
<hwest> Two part question makes it harder. Good proposal, unclear on the second half.
<Walter> Zakim: code?
<Chris_IAB> I agree with dwainberg proposal
<fielding> can I think it's not a good idea but may be necessary?
so do you support flag describing your type of compliance, and your mind might change depending on compliance doc outcome
dwainberg: if result is that this stays on table and we keep moving on i am ok with that
chappell: not sure i understood your point/concern
aleecia: my concern is that we would be building a general purpose tool and that's not within scope of charter
<Chris_IAB> npdoty, I'm IRC only today (in flight)
aleecia: we don't know what types of compliance are out there, don't have bounded number of things to consider. dw tried to limit to existing codes/national compliance but we don't know where that ends
<Chris_IAB> can someone please define "general purpose tool"?
<WileyS> We can set a high bar to make sure only significant standards like DAA become a valid option
<BerinSzoka> - did someone say SNL skit? Might be time for Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer to join the conversation to express his concerns about the ongoing need to define the many key undefined terms on which this process rests. See http://goo.gl/b1l7I
aleecia: we might have managed different types of compliance among a small set of options, but with large sets we can't
chappell: not sure i agree but appreciate explanation and understand.
<fielding> The charter does not mention tools -- just policy statements.
dwainberg: i wonder if we should open an issue to constrain set of possible statements that a server might make
aleecia: way to handle that would be revise text you have, keep current action items open
<Walter> Zakim: ipcaller is walter
dwainberg: need suggestions from others for that
<WileyS> How about requiring at least 1000 companies to have signed up for a specific code of conduct before it can be considered?
aleecia: still think it fits with action that is there, you can start off discussion about it on mailing list in more focused way. ......
<Chris_IAB> btw, BerinSzoka, I am not a general purpose tool-- I'm a very specific kind of tool :)
aleecia: encourage you to have text you want
<jeffwilson> dwainberg: no concerns with my text - need input from objectors
dwainberg: i don't share the concern, i think the size of set of options is self correcting, but those who do have that concern should offer suggestions
aleecia: not seeing anyone else jumping in with separate concerns
<johnsimpson> Has David W. Proposed text? If so, where is it?
aleecia: we have a couple different options for public commitment text already...
<npdoty> ACTION: aleecia to compile public compliance commitment options for potential Call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/17-dnt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Compile public compliance commitment options for potential Call [on Aleecia McDonald - due 2012-10-24].
aleecia: action on me to pull all these texts together so we can review side by side
<aleecia> Action-301, intermediaries and HTTP headers
<trackbot> ACTION-301 -- Rob van Eijk to eijk to draft explanation on intermediaries and inserted headers -- due 2012-10-11 -- OPEN
aleecia: next action is 301--intermediaries and http headers
<Walter> Zakim: p3 is Walter
rob suggested approach and 2 other paths but did not do standard text and there was no feedback
scribe: question is whether rob you can take what yo uhave and put it into standards language? rob: yes, can do in 1 week
<npdoty> action-301: please convert to standards language and a formal proposal
<trackbot> ACTION-301 Eijk to draft explanation on intermediaries and inserted headers notes added
<npdoty> action-301 due 10-23
<trackbot> ACTION-301 Eijk to draft explanation on intermediaries and inserted headers due date now 10-23
<Walter> rvaneijk: If necessary I may be able to give a hand on that one
aleecia: thank you rob, shift now over to going through whole lot of actions with no text associated with them..........
<jeffwilson> aleecia: going over actions that have no associated text, what can we close?
<trackbot> ACTION-264 -- Amy Colando to draft updated 'share' definition to avoid concerns (with rigo and chris-p) -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
<aleecia> Action-264, share
........amy: 264-definition of share
amy: yes we are working with this offline
<aleecia> (hard to understand some of this)
<rigo> Amy: still working on it, retain and ?? still under discussion
<npdoty> working quite a bit off-list, close to sharing with the public mailing list
amy: will submit to list in next week, other defs in next 2 weeks, or can open up other action item for other words
<npdoty> also expanding to work on the other definitions (collect and use?)
aleecia: reads back what she
heard to confirm
... go ahead and do all under same action for now and we can look at it and split off as needed.
<aleecia> Action-275, reword to avoid "tracking," Nick Doty
<aleecia> Action-260, update debugging text, Nick Doty
<trackbot> ACTION-275 -- Nick Doty to update middle way proposals to avoid relying on "tracking" -- due 2012-10-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<aleecia> Action-318, JS window / navigator update, Nick Doty
<aleecia> Action-319, non-norm 3rd party exceptions without JS, Nick Doty
<trackbot> ACTION-260 -- Nick Doty to update debugging text (add normative 'short term', 'diagnostic', expand on or replace "graduated response") -- due 2012-10-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
aleecia: 4 for nick: 275-rewording proposal to avoid tracking[?],has been updated...
<trackbot> ACTION-318 -- Nick Doty to update draft with JS window/navigator change (coordinate with dsinger/adrianba text) -- due 2012-10-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-319 -- Nick Doty to draft non-normative text on how to accomplish non-JS third parties that want to request for exceptions (with lou) -- due 2012-10-12 -- OPEN
<jeffwilson> missed 260 status as well, sorry
<aleecia> action-260 is pending review
<rigo> ND: have written text and sent to Lou
<npdoty> action-318 due 10-20
<trackbot> ACTION-318 Update draft with JS window/navigator change (coordinate with dsinger/adrianba text) due date now 10-20
<aleecia> Action-284, no altering DNT signal set from UA, Ian Fette
<trackbot> ACTION-284 -- Ian Fette to propose barring other software from altering a DNT signal if the browser already set it -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
<aleecia> Action-279, graduated response, Ian Fette
<aleecia> Action-304, URL re-direction, Ian Fette
<aleecia> Action-303, defn "visit", Ian Fette
<aleecia> Action-313, normative text around Adrian's exception proposal, Ian Fette
<aleecia> Action-266, retention grace period, Ian Fette
aleecia: thank you nick. all those remain 2 pending review, 2 with later due date, next ian--is he on call?
<npdoty> action-319: followed up with Lou, waiting on his feedback before sharing widely
<trackbot> ACTION-319 Draft non-normative text on how to accomplish non-JS third parties that want to request for exceptions (with lou) notes added
<aleecia> Action-131, use case for mixed first- and third-party interactions, Roy Fielding
<npdoty> action-319 due 10-20
<trackbot> ACTION-319 Draft non-normative text on how to accomplish non-JS third parties that want to request for exceptions (with lou) due date now 10-20
<jeffwilson> aleecia: i need to contact ian, he's not on the call
<trackbot> ACTION-131 -- Roy Fielding to sketch use case for user agent requests on tracking status resource -- due 2012-10-24 -- OPEN
<npdoty> aleecia will follow up with Ian who has a lot of action items we need to follow up on
aleecia: note that i need to contact ian and check in on whether his action items are still live. Roy action 131, use cases for [first/third?] party interactions
roy: updated date, mixing with tom's action,
<aleecia> Action-258, Propose 'should' for same-party and why, Tom Lowenthal /* This action could use a better name */
<aleecia> Action-263, updated minimization text, Ninja Marnau
<npdoty> aleecia will follow up with Tom regarding a couple action items
<trackbot> ACTION-263 -- Ninja Marnau to provide updated text regarding minimization (with nick) -- due 2012-10-03 -- OPEN
aleecia: thanks. TL cld not make call. Aleecia needs to contact Tom lowenthal, there is another action vs him. next 263: lyida?
<rigo> action-263: Was overtaken by events
<trackbot> ACTION-263 Provide updated text regarding minimization (with nick) notes added
ninja: can close bd of discussions in amsterdam
<aleecia> Action-276, financial logging retention, Lou Mastria
<aleecia> Action-286, DAA text on "unlinkability," Lou Mastria
<npdoty> close action-263
<trackbot> ACTION-263 Provide updated text regarding minimization (with nick) closed
<npdoty> it looks likely Lou isn't on the call
<trackbot> ACTION-276 -- Luigi Mastria to provide text regarding data retention, applicable to finanical logging data -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
aleecia: 2 for lou: financial logging retention 276 then daa text on unlinkability
<npdoty> do other DAA folks have any updates on Lou?
<aleecia> Action-315, verify ad associations' use case, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth
<trackbot> ACTION-315 -- Brendan Riordan-Butterworth to verify whether ad associations' use case will work with the proposed resolution for 171 from Shane -- due 2012-10-12 -- CLOSED
aleecia: i need to check in with
lou. we heard jmayer cant join, but working on actions, they
are also in play some done
... 315 for brendan
<npdoty> I think we actually resolved 315 while in Amsterdam, there wasn't new text, yeah?
aleecia: think that should be pending review?
<Chris_IAB> npdoty, I'm meeting with Lou later today; can you please email me on these actions and I'll follow-up with him?
<rigo> Action-315: There was new text in Amsterdam
<trackbot> ACTION-315 Verify whether ad associations' use case will work with the proposed resolution for 171 from Shane notes added
<npdoty> Chris_IAB, yes, absolutely
brendan: was research not text, so not pending review
<Chris_IAB> npdoty, thanks
<jchester2> I have to leave call to do a meeting. Apologies.
aleecia: brendan can you put url where this was discussed on mailing list into notes section on actoin? brendan yes
<aleecia> Action-317, examples on same party, David Singer
<aleecia> Action-316, when service provider indication is necessary, David Singer
<aleecia> Action-308, coordinate exceptions text across TPE and Compliance specs, David Singer
<aleecia> Action-307, non-norm text on 119, David Singer
<aleecia> Action-320, examples on out-of-band consent, David Singer
<aleecia> Action-282, one DNT header, David Singer
<aleecia> Action-268, party sync across both documents, David Singer
aleecia: mattias not on call, has one action. a bunch for david singer
<aleecia> Action-249, qualifiers to reflect permissions, sync across both documents, David Singer
<aleecia> Action-291, screen size, Kevin Smith
<jeffwilson> aleecia: david not on call, need to check in for status on his items
aleecia: first 317. not seeing david. I (aleecia) need to check in with david as well
<trackbot> ACTION-291 -- Kevin Smith to update to 3.5.2 to address different requirements regarding screen size -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
<Walter> Zakim: code?
<aleecia> Action-295, should v. must, Berin Szoka /* this action could use a better title */
kevin smith: working on my aciton right now will be done end of day
<trackbot> ACTION-295 -- Berin Szoka to should v. Must (In General) -- due 2012-10-11 -- OPEN
aleecia: berin: action 295 shouldvs must
<JC> Isn't there already standard language for that?
<rigo> Action-295: It is a placeholder and is incumbent on W3C to make the difference clearer between should and must
<trackbot> ACTION-295 Should v. Must (In General) notes added
berin: this was place holder bc there was lack of understanding of these terms and they needed to be explained but maybe incumbent on others to make this more clear, should be understood with complete precision
<jeffwilson> berin: wanted 295 as placeholder to clear up misunderstandings
<npdoty> so were you volunteering to help draft text to explain or clarify?
<Chris_IAB> all, appologies in advance-- plane is landing soon, so I'll be kicked offline for the rest of the meeting
<BrendanIAB> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt <- read this
aleecia: there has been lots of work on list, including roy's. suggest looking at archives, and we have definitions. Would take specific questions.
<npdoty> are you volunteering to compile and summarize, BerinSzoka?
<fielding> RFC2119 hs been used by thousands of standards documents. This is not a useful discussion.
<rigo> Action-295: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt <- read this
<trackbot> ACTION-295 Should v. Must (In General) notes added
berin: not what i recall from mtg. can you include post from list that you have in mind? can you collect in one place? to understand what you have in mind.
aleecia: rigo has suggested text and there is url from ietf.
<justin_> SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
dwainberg: echo berin's concerns, feels there is not full consensus on should vs. must
<johnsimpson> LOOK AT DOCUMENT RIGO POSTED!
<fielding> It is not possible to be clearer than a normative reference to RFC2119.
<ksmith> The concern at Amsterdam was not what we meant when we said should and must, but how it would be interpreted externally
<WileyS> Rigo - but the W3C doesn't work on Policy documents - this is a first (much further than P3P)
<BrendanIAB> The words are very well defined, it's the implications of the words that people get worked up about.
rigo: david w3c is operating with shoulds and musts since i joined in 99 and it always meant what ietf was defining. between technicians there is good understanding of what they mean.
<WileyS> Rigo - its the Policy context issue that's in question here - from a tech spec perspective it makes sense as is.
<npdoty> BerinSzoka, I understood that you took this action item because you were volunteering to write something to clarify for the group, is that right?
rigo: if we have trouble understanding of rsp 2190 then we should have separate call to discuss
<justin_> I don't understand the distinction.
<jeffwilson> dwainberg: definitions of should/must change when taken in a policy context
<npdoty> lawyers read a lot of W3C specs, like around accessibility, if people are looking for past experience
dw: i think disconnect is when we transfer this from tech context to compliance context where lawyers and compliance professionals will read differently
<vincent> s/rsp 2190/rfc 2119/
<Chris_IAB> it's the legal interpretation, which will inherently be jurisdictionally derived, that causes heartburn with these words in a "global" policy doc
<fielding> That is irrelevant -- we don't need to reach a "common understanding" of how lawyers read documents.
<WileyS> Aleecia - as you'll like not be the subject of legal charges in this area I can see why you're not worried. This is definitely a concern for those that are being asked to implement the standard.
<Chris_IAB> fielding, I agree, in part-- but the selection of the right word should consider it's use in context
dw: there seems to be misunderstanding of how people will read these. will not be read as optional, rather should will be read as mandatory/must in legal/compliance context.
aleecia: roy can you review these defs?
roy: should means interoperability requirements that would be must but there are conditions in world that override interroperability so you can't do it
<justin_> Lawyers are going to have to interpret all these words. There is nothing magical about SHOULD.
dw: don't understand how this will be understood in legal/compliance context.
<WileyS> So we'll all clear now: SHOULD = MUST in most cases
roy: normative def of rsc 2119. we should be talking about indifvidual requirements if these might be confusing. not meta discussion of terms
<rigo> johnsimpson, it was posted by Brendan
<johnsimpson> I agree with Roy. This discussion is a waste of time. We have the definitions.
<dwainberg> If we agree that SHOULD=MUST then problem solved
aleecia: should is usually going to be almost as strong as must, still a very strong statement. lou got it inamsterdam. not sure we why we still have problems. berin what would you like to do about this.
<Chapell> Ahhh, I thought of SHOULD as sort of a "recommended practice" or "best practice" --- more aspirational... I now understand that SHOULD = MUST
<ksmith> Also agree with Roy. We have had this discussion and the same clarification several times.
berin: thought this needed attention, but did not mean to do it myself. would like to see links to def.
<justin_> Again, BerinSzoka, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
berin: lots of people are not clear
<fielding> If there is a specific requirement in our document that might be confusing, then we should clarify that requirement -- not have a metadiscussion about the meaning of well-defined terms that have been accepted in practice for more than a decade.
<johnsimpson> Rigo, didn't you post the link to 2119?
<rigo> no, this was Brendan
<npdoty> I take it we don't have volunteers for this action item
<justin_> This is worse than a rathole.
aleecia: if you have specific quesitons re: rfc pls send to mailing list.
<rigo> close action-295
<trackbot> ACTION-295 Should v. Must (In General) closed
<aleecia> Action-289, define "unlinkable", Rachel Thomas
<aleecia> Action-287, define "user expectation", Rachel Thomas
<aleecia> Action-270, DAA text for service providers, Rachel Thomas
<damiano> var option = 0; // means all data, no filters
<damiano> sorry wrong window
<aleecia> Action-300, service provider option, Heather West
aleecia: couple of actions for rachel not sure what is going on. she is not on call, we will have to figure out over email.
<aleecia> Action-288, update compliance draft with non-normative "unlinkable" text option from Shane, Heather West
<aleecia> Action-271, update service provider language, Heather West
<aleecia> Action-251, add DNT:0 defn, Heather West
aleecia: actions for heather
heather: need another week
<Chapell> I imagine some of us may want to re-evaluate language that includes SHOULD
<aleecia> Action-212, UA consent to turn on DNT, Shane Wiley /* confused. Created in June, listed as dropped in August, yet due in September? */
<aleecia> Action-306, define "declared" data, Shane Wiley
<aleecia> Action-280, UA explanatory text & examples, Shane Wiley
<aleecia> Action-265, update 3.8.1, Shane Wiley
<npdoty> action-288 due 10-16
<trackbot> ACTION-288 Update unlinkable with non-normative text from Shane due date now 10-16
<aleecia> Action-274, independent use for service providers, Shane Wiley
<aleecia> Action-314, multi-domain site exceptions, Shane Wiley
heather: all adding simple content to compliance draft
<WileyS> A few made it to pending review - some didn't
<trackbot> ACTION-212 -- Shane Wiley to draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal -- due 2012-09-26 -- OPEN
<npdoty> action-271 due 10-16
<trackbot> ACTION-271 Update service provider language to apply to first and third parties due date now 10-16
<npdoty> action-300 due 10-16
<trackbot> ACTION-300 Add a service provider option (or condense with option 1) from jmayer due date now 10-16
aleecia: shane-action 212 re: user agent consent and turning on do not track. is that live?
shane: that's live, we revived it in amsterdam. i have draft ideas but have not compiled to final language. was discusison in amsterdam re: link
<npdoty> I see, so this isn't about obtaining consent, but a requirement on providing context/info?
<rigo> ACTION-212: Shane has Draft ideas but not compiled yet. We do not want to use the word link to avoid UI specificity. Now have to re-create Specification text
<trackbot> ACTION-212 Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal notes added
<npdoty> action-212 due 10-16
<trackbot> ACTION-212 Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal due date now 10-16
shane: there was opposition to UI specificity of the term "link" but making progress, so one more week on all my actions
aleecia: working actively on them?
aleecia: we are at about 50 action items for today that did not get done but it is hard to get stuff done if we don't get action items. not picking on shane
<npdoty> action-288 due 10-23
<trackbot> ACTION-288 Update unlinkable with non-normative text from Shane due date now 10-23
<npdoty> action-271 due 10-23
<trackbot> ACTION-271 Update service provider language to apply to first and third parties due date now 10-23
<rigo> action-212 du 10-23
<dtauerbach> 301 is me
aleecia: that walks us throug action items on old business. now unidentified callers
<WileyS> Aleecia - do you want to review those I did move to "Pending Review"?
<aleecia> we'll take those next call, thank you!
<aleecia> Hi Robert, where are you calling from?
<Chapell> it's france right?
<vincent> nop france is 33
<aleecia> ISSUE-174 How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less?
<WileyS> 38 is Yugoslavia (Interesting)
<justin_> fielding has suggested some text that gets to this that I still need to incorporate into the draft
aleecia: couple of new issues with no actions associated with them. first issue 174 to create compliance for implementers with short retention times.
<npdoty> justin, fielding, can you elaborate a bit?
aleecia: who wants to work with ian on this? [no volunteers] if no interest we will close for lack of interest
<trackbot> ISSUE-174 -- How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less? -- raised
<WileyS> Is Ian on today? We've be discussing this on the side so he may have more thoughts here.
justin: gets more to collection and first party/third party thing. may not need an action, some text for me to incorporate
rigo: think this was discussion in amsterdam to see if we have 6 week retention period then get rid of data then could have best practice on how to implement. /superdnt
<npdoty> I assume Ian wants to volunteer or will find a volunteer (since he already has a lot of open action items)
<WileyS> Nick, I only raise it since he's not here
rigo: is related to what mattias was saying. i don't want to write text, but someone who knows servers should do this. pls don't close this without asking ian and mattias.
aleecia: generally won't wait for people just bc they are not on call, but hearing ian working on it, and from justin that roy is also working on it.
<npdoty> (I'll add notes to 174)
<fielding> I don't think I am working on it
aleecia: its a candidate for closure if no one steps up
<aleecia> ISSUE-175 Have an appendix of best practices?
<rigo> issue-174: Ian and Roy were working on this. This is a candidate for closure if nobody works on it soon.
<trackbot> ISSUE-174 How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less? notes added
<fielding> … but I may have lost those brain cells.
aleecia: discussed appendix of best practices. may be able to take some of the non normative text for this. but maybe also some new text for this.
<rigo> fielding, Ian had some nice ideas
aleecia: would have expected
jonathan or tl to work on this but they are not on call
... anyone else?
nick: i was one of people suggesting moving text to appendices and am willing to do that.
<npdoty> npdoty: willing to volunteer to re-factor, not writing new appendices.
aleecia: more than a one-week task?
<justin_> npdoty, sure, let's talk
<aleecia> ISSUE-178 Add "Marketing" to list of permitted uses in Compliance document
nick maybe one week to start with and others will want to add
<npdoty> ACTION: doty to help re-factor into appendices (with justin, jmayer?) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/17-dnt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-325 - Help re-factor into appendices (with justin, jmayer?) [on Nick Doty - due 2012-10-24].
<trackbot> ISSUE-178 -- Add "Marketing" to list of permitted uses in Compliance document -- raised
<npdoty> action-325: this is related to issue-175
<trackbot> ACTION-325 Help re-factor into appendices (with justin, jmayer?) notes added
aleecia: 178: there was issue to add marketing to list of permitted uses
<npdoty> are 178 and 180 distinct?
<aleecia> ISSUE-180 Add "advertising" as a Permitted Use in the Compliance Document
keith scarborough volunteers to work with rachel on 178 and 180
<trackbot> ISSUE-180 -- Add "advertising" as a Permitted Use in the Compliance Document -- raised
aleecia: thank you. 1 week ok?
keith s: yes
<npdoty> ACTION: keith to draft a proposal on marketing permitted use (with rachel) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/17-dnt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-326 - Draft a proposal on marketing permitted use (with rachel) [on Keith Scarborough - due 2012-10-24].
<npdoty> action-326: issue-178
<trackbot> ACTION-326 Draft a proposal on marketing permitted use (with rachel) notes added
<npdoty> ACTION: keith to draft a proposal on advertising permitted use (with rachel) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/17-dnt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-327 - Draft a proposal on advertising permitted use (with rachel) [on Keith Scarborough - due 2012-10-24].
<aleecia> Action-273, text about multiple first parties, Rob Sherman (text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0247.html)
<trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Rob Sherman to propose text regarding multiple first parties -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN
<npdoty> action-327: issue-180
<trackbot> ACTION-327 Draft a proposal on advertising permitted use (with rachel) notes added
aleecia: final item for today. 3
actions i think should be shifted over to pending review. first
action 273 -rob sherman- re: multiple first parties
... he was talking about site with 2 owners. there was discussion on list, of whether widget, and was not what he is talking about. I think we are clear on text. might help to clarify this is not about social widgets.
rob: i think that is generally right. one editorial suggestion. not social widget like "like" button. can find a way to clarify. feel free anyone to offer specific thoughts
<aleecia> so: 1 more week for this action, please
<jeffwilson> rigo: have trouble with "reasonably expect" - expectations vary greatly
<npdoty> action-273 due 10-23
<trackbot> ACTION-273 Propose text regarding multiple first parties due date now 10-23
<fielding> speaking of social, how would a brand page on facebook be considered? Would 1st party be the brand owner, FB, or both?
rigo: from legal point of view always have trouble with "reasonably expect to communicate." can you offer another standard besides user expectation
<npdoty> +1 fielding, I think that might be part of this, and would be a good example
rob: would have to give it some thought. was trying to give more guidance. maybe we can talk separately rigo.
<npdoty> fielding, in fact, it's one of Rob's examples at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0247.html
rob: don't want magic text that makes a party a first party. let's discuss.
<aleecia> Action-277, text regarding contracts, David Singer (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0078.html)
<npdoty> action-273: make revisions regarding clarity about not current social widgets
<trackbot> ACTION-273 Propose text regarding multiple first parties notes added
aleecia: roy qu? roy: comfortable
with discussion on irc.
... action 277 dsinger not on call but i think we are ready to move that to pending review.
<aleecia> Action-267, DAA's 1st/3rd party definitions, Rachael Thomas (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0159.html) plus bonus definition of affiliate (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0175.html) and Kimon on third parties and control (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0176.html)
<Walter> rigo: what about 'reference'?
rachel and kimon both not on call but had them for first and third party definitions
<robsherman> fielding, I think that for a brand page on Facebook both Facebook and the brand would be first parties
aleecia: will check in with them since they are not on call
<rigo> Walter, what context?
<npdoty> aleecia will follow up with Rachel and Kimon regarding 1st/3rd definitions to make sure we have pending review text
<rigo> aleecia, can I just make an annoucement?
<dwainberg> aleecia, can you post your schedule?
aleecia: calls will be different as we work through items from amsterdam, and would like to be able to review one of these next time, and hopefully get to organic consensus.
<dwainberg> (your intended schedule for getting to LC?)
rigo: working on global considerations asap, and kimon hopeful. if you want to participate pls email.
<fielding> action fielding to address how multiple first parties can be expressed in tracking status representation
<trackbot> Created ACTION-328 - Address how multiple first parties can be expressed in tracking status representation [on Roy Fielding - due 2012-10-24].
<amyc> anything on timeline?
dwainberg: timeline for last call?
aleecia: will reply to mailing list.
<rigo> amy, around 19 Nov, but we have no confirmation
aleecia. just home after amsterdam, will try to catch up to mailing list.
<npdoty> thanks to susanisrael for keeping up on scribing
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/shane.,/shane: / Succeeded: s/charger/charter/ FAILED: s/2190/2119/ FAILED: s/rsp 2190/rfc 2119/ Succeeded: s/like/likely/ FAILED: s/rsc/rfc/ Found ScribeNick: susanisrael Inferring Scribes: susanisrael WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. Default Present: +1.408.674.aaaa, +1.202.370.aabb, robsherman, aleecia, Rigo, +1.425.310.aacc, BrendanIAB?, +31.65.141.aadd, rvaneijk, Walter, +aaee, +1.206.658.aaff, +1.646.801.aagg, AmyC, dwainberg, +1.703.265.aahh, adrianba, jeffwilson, +1.510.859.aaii, npdoty, +1.813.358.aajj, +49.431.98.aakk, jchester2, hwest, ninjamarnau, +1.415.728.aall, sidstamm, vinay, +1.813.366.aamm, +1.202.642.aann, +1.714.852.aaoo, vincent, hefferjr, fielding, +1.408.349.aapp, WileyS, +1.917.318.aaqq, +aarr, +1.301.351.aass, +1.202.507.aatt, +1.703.265.aauu, +1.215.286.aavv, +1.425.269.aaww, ChrisPedigoOPA, Keith, suegl, susanisrael, cblouch, Chapell, +1.678.580.aaxx, Brooks, AnnaLong, [FTC], +1.310.392.aayy, johnsimpson, [Microsoft], +1.408.536.aazz, +1.646.202.bbaa, +385221bbbb, eberkower, [CDT], [IPcaller], +1.609.258.bbcc, efelten, dtauerbach, RobertCapella Present: +1.408.674.aaaa +1.202.370.aabb robsherman aleecia Rigo +1.425.310.aacc BrendanIAB? +31.65.141.aadd rvaneijk Walter +aaee +1.206.658.aaff +1.646.801.aagg AmyC dwainberg +1.703.265.aahh adrianba jeffwilson +1.510.859.aaii npdoty +1.813.358.aajj +49.431.98.aakk jchester2 hwest ninjamarnau +1.415.728.aall sidstamm vinay +1.813.366.aamm +1.202.642.aann +1.714.852.aaoo vincent hefferjr fielding +1.408.349.aapp WileyS +1.917.318.aaqq +aarr +1.301.351.aass +1.202.507.aatt +1.703.265.aauu +1.215.286.aavv +1.425.269.aaww ChrisPedigoOPA Keith suegl susanisrael cblouch Chapell +1.678.580.aaxx Brooks AnnaLong [FTC] +1.310.392.aayy johnsimpson [Microsoft] +1.408.536.aazz +1.646.202.bbaa +385221bbbb eberkower [CDT] [IPcaller] +1.609.258.bbcc efelten dtauerbach RobertCapella Regrets: jmayer kimon me WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 17 Oct 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/17-dnt-minutes.html People with action items: aleecia doty keith WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]