Catch up on DNT -- 31 Oct 2012

w3c TPAC breakout session

<dsinger> scribenick: dsinger

npdoty: introduces the tracking preference expression and compliance documents

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html

npdoty: we have a large group (up to 100) with quite a few invited experts (consumer advocates, reps of reg. agencies, advertising side, and so on)

…group is at http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/

…the TPE document describes the 'immediate' on-wire protocol. The protocol is quite simple and short: DNT 0|1

…also JS APIs, and a response framework

…and then on compliance and scope, describes the server behavior in response to the preference

…sets limits on collection/retention/use of data

…compliance is under active debate

…that's the summary, members are in the room

<paulc> The TPAC breakout session is moving to #dntb

<aleecia> (*that's* what's going on! Thanks Wendy)

<aleecia> Yes, the regular session is happening

<aleecia> In 38 minutes

<Walter> aleecia: I'm behind a proper internet link now, may be able to transcribe this time

<aleecia> thanks!

<aleecia> Scribe: Walter

<aleecia> reminder: the TPAC session is in #dntb

<aleecia> This is the normal weekly session of the TPWG, not the TPAC session

<aleecia> great!

<aleecia> Ah, can someone tell me how to flip 8 & 9 without redoing the entire agenda from scratch?

<aleecia> thank you, Brendan. You're really good about remembering to do that

<BrendanIAB> It's tough to differentiate between IPcallers if I don't.

<BrendanIAB> Even more so when I'm not in the office.

<moneill2> zakim a is me

I'm on Skype and have no idea which IPcaller I am

<aleecia> Yes, yes it is. So I very much appreciate that you're great about remembering. :-)

<aleecia> Timing tends to matter in detangling it

<aleecia> thanks, John!

Zakim: IPcaller is Walter

<Chris_IAB> Chris Mejia joining via Skype

<aleecia> zakim mute aleecia

<Chris_IAB> btw- IAB is not receiving email due to Hurricane Sandy - so if you don't get a reply from me, that's why

<ifette> nick, i thought aleecia was trying to unassociate herself with that number?

<ifette> got it

<johnsimpson> hearing someone typing. might want to mute.

<npdoty> scribenick: Walter

when do I start?

aleecia: starting with the action items

<aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner

aleecia starts with the url in IRC

most of the actions that are open are not usual actions

<npdoty> action-255?

<trackbot> ACTION-255 -- Alan Chapell to work on financial reporting text (with nick, ian) as alternative to legal requirements -- due 2012-09-19 -- OPEN

<aleecia> action-255?

the next is action 255

Alan Chapell

<Chris_IAB> aleecia, please not that many of us in NYC area have not had access to work email in days

who is talking now?

<efelten> +1 Chris_IAB, major connectivity issues in/near New York

<vincent> Walter, I think it was npdoty

Moving through the list

the next is Amy, Action 254

updating share definition

<npdoty> npdoty: sent out text based on what I'd heard from Alan about potentially losing power, we had agreement on most of that, and I noted my additional suggestions

<aleecia> action-264?

<trackbot> ACTION-264 -- Amy Colando to draft updated 'share' definition to avoid concerns (with rigo and chris-p) -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN

<Chris_IAB> which Chris?

eh, 264

(hard to follow now)

Aleecia asks Amy to add the URL for the text to the Action number

<Chris_IAB> npdoty and aleecia, please note that there are two Chris's :)

Is that also the case for action 264?

<npdoty> action-262?

<trackbot> ACTION-262 -- Amy Colando to draft text regarding existing contracts (with vinay) -- due 2012-10-03 -- OPEN

Aleecia sees replies to Amy's text, but not the original

Action 245 is being left open for Nick and Jonathan to keep working on

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find 245. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/users>.

Then we have a number of actions of people not on the call

<aleecia> action-323

aleecia would like to see action on 323

to be taken action or it will be closed

<npdoty> I've closed action 321, because we already had the discussion

<aleecia> (321 was the call after the f2f)

npdoty mentions that a conversation was had on 321 and that Tom took notes during that meeting

aleecia is going to send Tom a mail to request those notes

<rigo_> trackbot, comment action-323 it is on Tom to send something to the mailing-list. Tom Loewenthal took notes on a Friday call we had with David Singer, Roy Fielding and Nick Doty

<trackbot> ACTION-323 Share results of what-the-response-is-for discussion notes added

Moving throught the other actions, 202

draft intermediary requirements

<npdoty> action-302?

<trackbot> ACTION-302 -- Thomas Lowenthal to draft intermediary requirements, without implementation details (with Brendan) -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN

eh, 302

<rigo_> yes

aleecia: Nick, are you able to make edits on 302?

<npdoty> action-302?

<trackbot> ACTION-302 -- Brendan Riordan-Butterworth to draft intermediary requirements, without implementation details (with Brendan) -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN

<vincent> action-258 ?

<npdoty> action-258?

aleecia: asks whether anyone is interested in working on Action 258 or it will be closed

<rigo_> action-258?

<trackbot> ACTION-258 -- Thomas Lowenthal to propose 'should' for same-party and why -- due 2012-10-22 -- OPEN

<npdoty> close action-258

Moving on

seeing two actions against (name not understood)

<npdoty> action-258: no movement on this action, so we're closing it

Nex action is on linkability

aleecia mentions the DAA multisite principlies

<aleecia> action-286?

Is there someone who would like to take this on?

<Chris_IAB> Brendan or I can take it on

286 is moved to BrendanIAB

<npdoty> re-assigned to Brendan, feel free to work together with Chris and Lou

<rigo_> action-286?

who is talking now?

<rigo> walter, just type ?? if you don't know

Action 276

<aleecia> action-276

<fielding> action-276?

<trackbot> ACTION-276 -- Luigi Mastria to provide text regarding data retention, applicable to finanical logging data -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN

<rigo> action-276?

<Chris_IAB> Brendan or I can do this one too

aleecia: if someone is familiar with what ??? had in mind, he or she can take it on

BrendanIAB: will take on 276

<aleecia> +2 weeks for Brendan on 276

????

We have two actions against Keith

<npdoty> is Rachel on the call today?

she is not on the call

<aleecia> action-327: Draft a proposal on advertising permitted use (with rachel)

<Chris_IAB> aleecia, lots of people not able to join today due to Hurricane Sandy aftermath. Think we should not close anything today/this week, to allow people time to recover and re-connect

<rigo> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/327

aleecia is someone interested in taking those on or should we close it for lack of interest?

???? is interested tot take this on on behalf of ????

<jchester2> I agree that because of the storm, we need to give more time

<rigo> I will add a note to the action

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, lots of people not able to join today due to Hurricane Sandy aftermath. Think we should not close anything today/this week, to allow people time to recover and re-connect

<npdoty> Brendan is able to take these actions on on behalf of Keith/Rachel

<aleecia> Brendan will take on action-327

<johnsimpson> agree should give time because of storm...

The other one was marketing

probably the same conversation

<aleecia> action-326, again Brendan

BrendanIAB agrees

<npdoty> I think it would be good to prioritize these proposals as permitted uses are areas we're trying to work through now

aleecia thanks BrendanIAB

Nex we have on here

action 273

<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

<rigo> action-273?

<trackbot> ACTION-273 -- Rob Sherman to propose text regarding multiple first parties -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN

<aleecia> action-273, Propose text regarding multiple first parties

aleecia has not seen Rob Sherman on the call, he is based in DC and is probably not having power issues

is anyone working on this?

is this being discussed?

<dwainberg> I know that some in DC are having net and phone issues

<rigo> http://www.w3.org/mid/CC7FA482.12746%25robsherman@fb.com

<rigo> is Rob's response

Greater DC area is still affected by Sandy

<npdoty> Rob sent an initial proposal, but there was a request to update text regarding social widgets

<rigo> see above

<npdoty> "make revisions regarding clarity about not current social widgets 17 Oct 2012"

ChrisPedigo mentions that it was his understanding that a text would be sent today

apologies, this is a lot harder than I thought it would be

<rigo> I had exchanges with Rob about this and we were wondering about a certain wording

We have a number of actions for David Singer

David has been in an email conversation with Roy

<aleecia> action-317, action-316, action-249 are in progress with Roy

about 249 and ?WileyS:

<aleecia> by next week

progress will have been made by next week

<aleecia> action-307 is in progress, action-320 went out today

David mentions a mail on 307 and one on 320

<ChrisPedigoOPA> apologies. need to drop off to meet a contractor at my house. storm damage.

<aleecia> good luck, Chris!

David: needs some signal from the compliance editors when it is appropriate to edit the compliance document
... does not understand 2??

rigo: mentions synchronisation

David: has changed them already, they are pending review now

aleecia: sees another action for Rachel

Coming to action 270

<aleecia> action-270 Propose existing DAA text for service providers

the issue is that service providers means something different to DAA than they do to W3C

aleecia suggests closing this one

<fielding> the def was proposed, so action complete

who is talking now?

<aleecia> brendan

<rigo> roy, I recollect the same. We had discussions and

BrendanIAB: wants some time to think this over

<Chris_IAB> Walter, it's Brendan from IAB

<johnsimpson> roy, my recollection as well

<rigo> did not not find it better than our own

thanks, it is really difficult to follow who is talking at times

<aleecia> 270: owner change to bren & mark as pending review

For 289, definding unlinkable

<aleecia> Define "unlinkable" related to section 3.6 on unlinkable data in compliance document

<johnsimpson> as I recall it wasn't applicable..

aleecia thinks this is a duplicate

I think this is a separate task

<npdoty> looks like a duplicate to me

a proper definition on data out os scope

<BrendanIAB> 286 vs 289 look very similar. 289 looks like it has 3.6 section ref tho

<rigo> trackbot, comment action-289 this is a duplicate of action-286 and should be closed

<trackbot> ACTION-289 Define "unlinkable" related to section 3.6 on unlinkable data in compliance document notes added

<npdoty> in both cases, I think defining unlinkable is a key point about what's out of scope

<npdoty> BrendanIAB, do you think they're distinct? you shouldn't take two actions if you don't know the difference

<rigo> Walter: Not the same action, are distinct, should be done in cooperation

<npdoty> if Walter can volunteer to work with Rachel/Brendan, that sounds good to me

will be interesting, but ok

<aleecia> 289 moves to walter

We are now at action 287

<aleecia> Define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents.

<aleecia> action-287

<rigo> action-287?

<trackbot> ACTION-287 -- Rachel Thomas to define "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two documents. -- due 2012-10-10 -- OPEN

aleecia: does anyone know the progress on 287?

<Chapell> I'm happy to take this on

<aleecia> Nick speaking

Nick has discussed this with Rachel

LouMastria would love to do the work, but it depends on Chris allowing him

<aleecia> Chris

<Chapell> sorry, I've got to jjmp off

<Chapell> but I'm happy to help with this one

<Chapell> and nick has submitted my text

<npdoty> chrisiab: would like to take this on, but not currently listed as a Participant

aleecia, my understanding in Amsterdam was that this was ongoing with the DAA, but we need to get this done, the IP protection has to be in place before people write on other texts

<npdoty> npdoty: will follow up with Chris IAB and Lou regarding the paperwork

This brings us to the end of reviewing actions

really not understandable at all

on this side

schunter: wanted to say something on civility on the mailing list

we received multiple complaints about people not being as civil as they shou

a drastic possible message is to put the whole list on moderation

which whould slow down the speed of the conversation

which is not schunter

's preferred option

another option is to put certain members on moderation

which is not perfect either

schunter: would hear some opinions

<ifette> \

would like to hear those

npdoty: wants to follow up

<fielding> restrict posting to actual written text for documents

npdoty: would encourage to a breakout group to have a productive environment and to have professional discussion

we will follow up on the complaints

ifette: wants to see a more civil environment too
... this group is moving incredibly slowly, moderation would be a killing blow
... as much as I would like to see more civility, I would not be supportive of official moderation policies

Brooks: it might be helpful to explain what the actual policy

scribe: people are free to vehemently disagree with each other

disagreement is not incivility

what specifically are we to avoid?

<johnsimpson> good question, Brooks

schunter: what I would like to see is constructive behaviour which is to the point

not against persons, but on issues

scribe: it is important to say what your proposal is, what you want to change

Brooks: that is telling us to be constructive, not about civility

<npdoty> +1 to being both civil and constructive

schunter: the important point should be to move the discussion forward

<Brooks> no agree, but I can disagree and not have the answer on hand

schunter: I see the following concerns... I don't think your solution is not the right way forward

<npdoty> schunter: important point of each message sent to the list should be to move the discussion forward

<johnsimpson> +q

<tlr> 3.1 Individual Participation Criteria

<tlr> There are three qualities an individual is expected to demonstrate in order to participate in W3C:

<tlr> Technical competence in one's role

schunter: a no-go area is talking against the person

<tlr> The ability to act fairly

<tlr> Social competence in one's role

<schunter> Advisory Committee representatives who nominate individuals from their organization for participation in W3C Activities are responsible for assessing and attesting to the qualities of those nominees.

schunter: does that answer the question?

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest thread closing

<schunter> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#ParticipationCriteria

David: chair should take the possibility to respond to uncivil messages on-list mentioning that this will not be considered

schunter: good point

<jchester2> +q

<BerinSzoka> the other reason that would be helpful is that it would illustrate clearly what exactly we're considering to be uncivil

<Chris_IAB> Agree that W3C staff and Co-Chairs should monitor more (as possible), but not gate emails due to time concerns

johnsimpson: two things that happened
... the ability to ask clarifying questions is important

<jchester2> Walter--speaking is John Simpson

drat

<efelten> especially questions about the meaning of proposed text

<BerinSzoka> maybe I don't follow the list closely enough but I'm just not sure what kind of behavior we're concerned with here. could anyone provide examples--non-linkable to the speaker, of course

<Chris_IAB> taking certain threads offline is also a good idea, especially around clarifications

johnsimpson: the questions turned out to be upsetting

<Chris_IAB> you can already bring them back online

schunter: questions "are you out of your mind" are not the best questions

<schunter> ;-)

johnsimpson: I'm genuinely trying to understand some of the issues

<ChrisIAB> +q

schunter: when you read a message you should assume it is in good faith
... you could interpret a message in an offensive way, but should take the benefit of doubt
... even if you could find a minor offense in the message
... it is important to try to de-escalate, even if you read some offense in the message
... it is clearly important to ask clarifying questions

jchester2: am glad that W3C is bringing this up
... I have been receiving private mails about the unnecessary tone of the discourse

<johnsimpson> good points, Matthias

jchester2: I gather from these e-mails that people are trying to reconcile the issues off-list
... in part I think we are trying to ironing out global political issues

<Chris_IAB> +1 to jchester2 's first statement

<jchester2> mute me

schunter: we should discuss all aspects at hand and not take the political system as a role model

susanisrael: wonders whether making the list non-public would help
... I am wondering if some people are dressing mails up for a wider audience
... +1

<aleecia> we might also look at a discuss list plus a focused list for getting through the work

<David> You need public visibility on this process.

<npdoty> our charter requires that our work is primarily done on public mailing lists

schunter: asks whether susanisrael thinks the list would be more civil if it was private

<rigo> +1 to have a member channel for the controversial stuff and still be accountable to the public

<rigo> with a common message

susanisrael: thinks that some messages are placed there for a wider audience, but is not sure

Chris_IAB: I want to thank schunter for stepping in
... it is important to try to remain civil

<johnsimpson> There is also the question of posts to the list by people who are not members of the WG. Often they make good comments, but not always...

Chris_IAB: I want to apologise if anyone has taken my comments as offensive, it is difficult to tell if a text is as offensive as it is read
... maybe we can move to a more spoken forum to prevent this
... asks the co-chairs to look more often if something can better be moved to a call

-1

scribe: again apologies, please understand that I am direct at times
... we at IAB have good intentions with working with this group

<jmayer> +q

schunter: it is important to note that written messages are more likely to get out of hand

<dsinger> …notes that apologies (such as we just graciously had) go a long way to reducing temperature

schunter: it is easier to be offensive in written communication

<aleecia> :-)

<dsinger> :-)

<aleecia> "don't drink and post"

jmayer: none should be drinking and writing

<aleecia> Perhaps Nick would like to take this one

jmayer: I have had difficulties to explain my involvement with W3C at Stanford, if there is no progress

<aleecia> ifette, would you mind letting npdoty speak first?

jmayer: and openness, the fact of the matter is that this is was completely unacceptable

<aleecia> thank you

<jchester2> I agree that raising issue of Jonathan's relationship with Stanford was inappropriate and should not be condoned.

<ifette> Np. Call it an exercise in civility :)

jmayer: an ad hominem attack on the academic standing of the institution

jchester2: +1

<ifette> though i would like to reply directly to what j.m. said

<ifette> wtf

jchester2: as best as I can tell the group is doing nothing

<ifette> "shame on you all, hang up"

npdoty: thanks for your input

<ifette> riiight

who is talking now?

<jmayer> Corporations is at 10am every Wednesday...

<ifette> npdoty is talking

npdoty: there are escalation procedures
... we take these things very seriously

tlr: we are indeed following up on everything, that may involve educating individuals on civility
... we will take this offline

ifette: this is an interesting example of the importance of a civil discussion

<BerinSzoka> - Maybe W3C should buy everyone a copy of "How to Win Friends & Influence People"?

ifette: the underlying question was not attacking academic freedom
... who is representing an organisation

<npdoty> npdoty: might have been missed in the minutes before, so I wanted to repeat: we are following up with all complaints that have been received, and that we have an escalation procedure to use if necessary, which I hope it won't be

ifette: is a question which is fair to ask

<Chris_IAB> +1 to ifette

tlr: good point
... to make it clear we are adressing the question about jonathan's affiliation with stanford

<npdoty> not sure the minutes are capturing this piece correctly

<aleecia> Walter: frustrated, questions not as inquires but as implied question of credibility

<aleecia> … part of some of the complaints, will wait to see what re-education I get on civility

<Chris_IAB> for my part, not intended Walter, and sincere apologies if I miscommunicated or I was misunderstood-- not my intention at all

<aleecia> … not as involved as Jonathan has been but - (lost rest, please add, Walter)

aleecia: I have been wondering to what extent my involvement with this group makes sense under the circumstances

<jchester2> I agree with what Mattias is saying

<npdoty> s/(lost rest, please add, Walter)/have had concerns about questioning my credibility and whether it's worthwhile to continue participation

aleecia: the circumstances being messages that I perceived as veiled threats about my employer etc.

<aleecia> (to be clear, that was Walter adding to the record, not aleecia speaking)

<npdoty> s/aleecia: I have/aleecia, I have/

<Zakim> rigo, you wanted to talk about a large cultural array of people

rigo: We are in a diverse audience

<Brooks> in fairness, we aren't all equal experts

rigo: some terms which are standard in one context are very provocative in another context

<aleecia> Anyone in the room knows something interesting to contribute. Anyone.

<aleecia> Not everyone contributes the same level, but all are able to contribute something, or would not be here

rigo: to give an example when w3c joined a open standards effort the entire OSS community was upset about wording that had been previously used to justify software patents
... you create some wording that may offend others without even knowing

<Brooks> if Roy makes a claim about how apache works, and I disagree, he may ask me what I know if I disagree

<Chris_IAB> agree with you Rigo; always good to clarify off-line, 1-1, if you feel there is an issue

<susanisrael> people have different areas of expertise, as well. +1 aleecia

<aleecia> Walter: agrees with Rigo

<aleecia> … some wording from people with corporate background seen through the lens of corporate politics,

<aleecia> … not sure to what extent the rules of thumb here do apply

<npdoty> in case it was missed, I certainly take this very seriously. the group cannot be productive if people feel threatened and we are spending our time on responding to negativity instead of participating within the group.

<dwainberg> ?

<aleecia> +1 nick

<Chris_IAB> +q

Chris_IAB: I think we are all professionals
... if someone feels attacked I encourage to contact the other person offline

<BerinSzoka> is Jonathan no longer on the phone?

Chris_IAB: to take a step off the thread and make sure it is clarified
... and if you still feel attacked take it to the chairs or tlr

<dsinger> strongly supports taking it offline; heated threads tend to get long, as well, and keeping up with the group becomes a challenge, separating 'wheat' from 'chaff'

<aleecia> correct. he leaves a little before 10 to make his morning class

<WileyS> zakim who is on the call

schunter: what is important it is important not to reply but to notify aleecia or me

<npdoty> please feel free to include me if I can help in following up at all

schunter: it is very easy to get into escalation mode
... I would like to close this topic

??? I may have missed this part

scribe: what occurs is a one time offense, multi-time offense

<aleecia> Shane asks what happens when W3C staff gets involved

<aleecia> Nick?

schunter: good point, we do not have a formal escalation procedure at this point

<aleecia> Thomas: escalation path is clear

tlr: the escalation path is clear, each of the complaints we have had...

<aleecia> … each complaint in the latest round, we talk to the party that makes it

tlr: we will see if we can get to a useful result
... hope very much that we will not need to remove people from the mailing list
... in the extreme case we may have to end up in a situation where we have to ask the director to remove people from the group

<jchester2> Shane: Zakim meant nothing personal!

tlr: we will definitely follow-up on every complaint received

schunter: the next item on the agenda is global considerations

Global Considerations

rigo: we had a technical plenary, I just gave a status report to the group
... and now to you all
... we had a lunch table at the F2F in Amsterdam
... I had by e-mail expressions of further interest
... there are two options on the table

<npdoty> BoF table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_a_feather_%28computing%29

rigo: 1) workshop for the general public
... 2) work within the context of this working group
... I have asked if they would mind a task force within the working group
... which they didn't
... IAB EU has been asked for a location
... 19 November was coined, but none was available on that date
... Rob suggested postponing it to January
... we decided to move to January, I will write an introduction to you all
... about what we will try to accomplish
... once we have this discussed to have a F2F in Southern Europe
... specification of DNT:0
... and other parts
... whether we want to have a separate document
... or to have it included in the spec
... to get to a point what DNT:0 at least means
... OTOH we don't want to restrict the rest of the world
... we have to state somewhere that we in EU have no distinction between 1st and 3rd parties
... and finally we will have to have some discussions on the permitted uses
... whether they work in the EU context and what has to be done to make them work in order to get a unified model
... or whether we have to split between US/EU

<Brooks> permitted uses are not relative to the US market

rigo: this is all up for discussion
... this or next week there will be an introductory mail

<aleecia> Note we have a different mailing list already

<WileyS> Aleecia - a different mailing list for Global Considerations?

<aleecia> Rigo, you might want to work with Nick regarding the existing dlist for global considerations

<WileyS> Aleecia, if yes, what is the list name?

<aleecia> oops! sorry

<npdoty> we created http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-international/ back in Brussels related to that topic

<aleecia> forgot I was muted :-)

Brooks: I just want to point that out that specific permitted uses are relative to US industry requirements and equally relative to EU requirements
... they are just as applicable to EU as to the USA

rigo: we do have some wiggle room, we have to negotiate this with the DPAs
... there is a different kind of negotiation ground
... we will try to make clear what the bargaining situation is
... the benefit of a global tool versus regional versions

<npdoty> I think we all accept that there will be cases where DNT compliance alone won't guarantee certain levels of legal compliance in EU

<Chris_IAB> Matthias, which group is that? I was also left a bit confused, but I want to learn more.

aleecia: will you take this up as an action

to rigo

rigo: what is the timeframe

<npdoty> ACTION: rigo to send a reminder about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-international/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/31-dnt-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Send a reminder about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-international/ [on Rigo Wenning - due 2012-11-07].

aleecia: whenever you are ready

<rigo> Brooks, take it offline and send me email

aleecia: we have a couple of items we are unlikely to get through

<dsinger> issue-174?

<trackbot> ISSUE-174 -- How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less? -- raised

aleecia: I just want to get through to see whether someone will take action ont hese

<dsinger> ins't the raw data exception directly related?

(couldn't make out what was said)

<aleecia> issue-175?

<trackbot> ISSUE-175 -- Have an appendix of best practices? -- raised

<dsinger> issue-175?

<rigo> I found the text nice. NInja commented and it was rather constructive

npdoty: I am happy to propose to the group what the organisation would look like

<aleecia> issue-178?

<trackbot> ISSUE-178 -- Add "Marketing" to list of permitted uses in Compliance document -- raised

<WileyS> Nick, this is what we touched on a bit this morning (appendix), correct?

<dsinger> looks like action-326 to me

<dsinger> action-326?

<npdoty> WileyS, yes, in part

<WileyS> Nick, okay

<rigo> action-326?

<trackbot> ACTION-326 -- Keith Scarborough to draft a proposal on marketing permitted use (with rachel) -- due 2012-10-24 -- OPEN

<aleecia> issue-180?

(inaudible)

<dsinger> ISSUE-180

<dsinger> Keith Scarborough RAISED Add "advertising" as a Permitted Use in the Compliance Document

<rigo> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/180

<WileyS> Nick, don't disagree with the approach but could you help us understand where non-normative examples would remain in the body of the document and when they should be moved/copied in the "best practices" appendix? Thank you.

<npdoty> I suggest we can open these issues once (on the additional permitted uses to discuss, and appendix)

<rigo> ACTION-180: Provide a text update to section 4.3 to resolve issue 116 and ISSUE-84

aleecia: I am actually feeling we are making progress

<dsinger> action 327

Selection of scribe

AoB / Additions

npdoty: just on those issues, should we open them?

aleecia: yes, they should move from raised to open
... we have actions against them, so they should transition to open

<aleecia> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/pendingreview

<dwainberg> Aleecia, what about the timeline for getting to LC?

now the pending review actions are adressed

<aleecia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0652.html

<WileyS> Aleecia, originally helped write that text but am now in the camp with David

is there any other discussion on the three options we have?

<npdoty> I thought we previously had agreement on this, but I don't have additional options beyond these.

aleecia: I suggest we take two days to discuss this further

<jchester2> I think you should wait until Monday until power is restored.

aleecia: but then move to start it through the decision-making process

??? mentions that two days is too short under the circumstances

<npdoty> s/???/BrendanIAB/

<susanisrael> east coast power may not be fully available until monday. +1 to rigo's suggestion that we give people a week as a courtesy

<jchester2> + Rigo's proposal for one week

dwainberg: it is not a huge issue for me

<WileyS> Nothing from me

<dwainberg> s/dwainberg:/Brendan/

dwainberg: two things on this
... there is another option, silence

<npdoty> s/for me/for me, but for people not on the call today/

dwainberg: second I recently opened a thread
... on ideas of limiting the set of tokens
... folks may change their minds depending on the outcome of that discussion
... would like to give it another week or two for that

<WileyS> I don't see #2 as silence - if anything its just the opposite

<WileyS> #3 is closer to "silence" as it doesn't drive an obligation

dwainberg: I think we should give it some time

<npdoty> I think Aleecia is saying that with #2 tl wouldn't be proposing additional text, with the justification that it is unnecessary

<npdoty> it's always possible that text will change

<Chris_IAB> FYI- anyone trying to reach me or Brendan, please note that IAB email servers are down due to Manhattan power outage (due to Hurricane Sandy). Unfortunately, we don't have an ETA from the power company for restoration of service. Sorry for any inconvenience and spamming you all here.

dwainberg: it is possible that the text will change

aleecia: at which point do you think it will be finalised

dwainberg: I believe it was an action time that came out of the Amsterdam meeting
... ideally I would give it two weeks to see what happens

rigo: maybe there is a real legal question here

<aleecia> here's what I'm hearing:

rigo: raised by Ed Felten

<npdoty> if we have reached the point where additional discussion isn't at the point of moving any of the participants away from existing positions, then going through the decision process is useful, even if ultimately we refine the proposal we go forward with

<aleecia> - add option 4, utter silence

<aleecia> - wait one week for people to have power on, which will also give time for David W's discussion

<fielding> dwainberg was referring to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0611.html

rigo: whether it would be acceptable that a technical signal would signal compliance

<aleecia> barring surprises, we move into final texts to be sure we agree upon, starting 1 week from now, ending 2 days later. "surprises" means something unexpected in the email thread

rigo: when it doesn't work we have to discuss this further

aleecia: what we are looking at is a fourth option of just silence

<johnsimpson> Can you please resend the email with the 4th option listed.

aleecia: we have now four options to move through the process after the token discussion

dwainberg: I wonder when you will update us on the anticipated timeline

session adjourned

- DRAFT -

Catch up on DNT

31 Oct 2012

Attendees

Contents

w3c TPAC breakout session

Global Considerations

Selection of scribe

AoB / Additions

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output