Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference

19 Jun 2013

See also: IRC log


+1.703.265.aaaa, npdoty, cblouch, Fielding, Craig_Spiezle, +1.215.286.aabb, +1.703.993.aacc, +1.212.768.aadd, Aleecia, paulohm, +1.202.347.aaee, +1.202.210.aaff, +1.202.331.aagg, susanisrael?, +1.202.787.aahh, jackhobaugh, Rigo, +1.646.827.aaii, Brooks, jchester2, waltmichel, marc_, dwainberg, vinay, moneill2, Keith_Scarborough, dsinger, +1.650.595.aajj, +1.781.482.aakk, [DAA]?, +1.937.215.aall, +1.609.258.aamm, +1.408.836.aann, efelten, hefferjr, samsilberman, BerinSzoka, +1.415.470.aaoo, Jonathan_Mayer, +1.240.994.aapp, Peder_Magee, WileyS, Yianni, +49.431.98.aaqq, ninjamarnau, rsherman, wseltzer, billscannell, +1.917.934.aarr, Chris_IAB, +1.310.292.aass, [Microsoft], sidstamm, hwest, johnsimpson, [FTC], omer_tene, +31.65.141.aatt, rvaneijk, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.639.aauu, peterswire, laurengelman, thomas


<trackbot> Date: 19 June 2013

<aleecia> npdoty, I will be heavily multitasking. If I seem to be ignoring the call or IRC at some point, that means I've wandered off right then. I'll do what I can.

<aleecia> npdoty, I will be heavily multitasking. If I seem to be ignoring the call or IRC at some point, that means I've wandered off right then. I'll do what I can.

<marc_> 202 210-4464 is marc

<Chris_IAB> I just joined

<johnsimpson> aass is john simpson

<npdoty> scribenick: susanisrael

<Chris_IAB> I joined from 52-661-100-xxxx

<dsinger> fine by me

<Brooks> good sound

<Chris_IAB> can we put a link here to the doc?

peterswire: thanks for joining everyone. the text to start with is the email i circulated, proposing how to proceed toward last call, circulated last friday, jointly signed by Mattias and me.

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, can you please provide links to these docs here?

<npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance-june.html

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, awesome, thanks :)

<npdoty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0145.html

peterswire: will walk through that for discussion. The june draft is the version from June 14. we are now proposing the june draft for discussion with goal to end up with last call draft.

justin and heather the compliance spec document have left open that this could be listed as a formal editors draft[?]

scribe: have been working closely with people at w3c who will be working together to provide good customer service to everyone....

the first item talks about sending a group of annotations to the june draft. You have available a couple of things, one from yianni june 10 and a subsequent version explaining differences from previous draft....

<npdoty> Yianni's comparison is attached: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0051.html

scribe: also on annotations for each section it clearly labels the currently open issues......you can see what issues in play or go issue by issue and see what changes have happened.
... in general the june draft was an effort by thomas and others who have experience with this kind of spec. As call with Aleecia showed, things can be dropped in any editing process.
... we will hopefully have streamlined user friendly process going forward for editorial and small grammatical changes which will be posted to email list, but will raise anything to group that seems to be substantive.

<Chapell> having trouble getting onto conf line

<johnsimpson> Does the issue tracker now reflect the June draft? I am confused..

<npdoty> peter's email from June 14: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jun/0145.html

scribe: for substantive proposals for issues where you would like to have different substance than the june draft, my email says we invite any of you to propose new text for anything in the june draft.....if you ask to open an issue we willl......
... there may be many proposals on same issues, so in that case we'll use discretion, won't have exactly one issue for each proposal but will group proposals when they are on same issue.....

want to underscore that this is an invitation for you to contribute where you think there are things we should discuss.....

<Chapell> anyone else having trouble

<jchester2> Peter: What is the deadline for proposing changes? Thks

<Chapell> can't dial-in

at the end we will have to come back to the whole group to see whether the whole doc is acceptable....

deadline for this is a week from today....

<wseltzer> [Wednesday, June 26]

SO WEDNESDAY JUNE 26 is deadline for submitting/opening issues....

<Chapell> npdoty thanks - trying from cell and land line

if today you all agree to follow this process we will close the currently open issues and this is at some level bureaucratic, not an attempt to close off issues.....you have full power to open issues.....which will be proposed amendments to the june draft...

<mecallahan> yes it is zakim thanks.

bc everyone in group gets to have proposals, we will then know the universe of things that we need to work on. there would be new sequentially numbered easy to read list of issues, linked to old issue numbers....

<Mike_Zaneis> The phone lines are not working. I've also tried on landline and cell.

timing: our last call deadline is end of july, july 31. It does not seem wise to be deciding on the last day....so the wednesday before that will be a key planned meeting to decide where the group is.....

i would like to propose no punting rule from jmayer. we are trying to get the text done. It would take an affirmative decision by the group to extend beyond July 31.

<jchester2> Mazel Tov, Peter!

on personal side i will not be doing W3C work in early august. I am getting married Aug 2 and going on honeymoon and i will not be taking do not track calls during the first part of august....

so i am trying to show you the seriousness of doing our work during the first part of july. there is no easy way to push th is off.....

some other aspects of how we propose to operate during this period. Beginning next Wednesday, we are going to have a procedure of discussion of sort of looking at counterproposals that we have been talking about with stafff at w3c....

we will let you know what issues will be discussed and try to move them along.

<Mike_Zaneis> Fifth times the charm. (202) 253-1466 is Mike_Zaneis

tlr: essential plan is to use decision process as documented. there is one piece in early part where we will deviate. In current process it has close control of who drafts what by chair.....

<npdoty> Zakim, aarr may be susanisrael

as peter just said for the next week there is an opportunity to put basic text on table to inform issues list. there will be opportunity to discuss and make counterproposals. Once all on table we will have call for objections and work through objections to arrive at decisions on issues.

we should be able to do a good round of triage, there will be issues we think might be useful to resolve but not crucial and those might go on different time scale.

<marc_> I am not sure I understand how you will resolve two conflicting proposals for an issue.

we will decide timeline, but it depends on what issues and proposals are on table a week from now.

peterswire: so we will be moving on schedule to resolve issues and if they don't resolve we will put them out for people to decide by July 24 call.

<jchester2> For the record, Thomas. I am concerned there is an attempt perhaps by the W3C to rush through this process. I am especially concerned that items which clearly need due-diligence are and won't be addressed sufficiently. I expect W3C to be held accountable by the public for the process it adopts to address the issues at hand and will be presented.

peterswire: up to now we have had many meetintgs. In next period the core work of the group should happen on the list. we will be looking at text. that is where the hard work of the group will happen.....

i will have new policy for this period. Will inform group when i have meetings or calls with members of the working group.....will be done based on "on the record and transparent process....."

so if discussion is not on list, the fact that it took place will be noted on the list.....more traditional w3c process.

this is to try to assure people that they will be seeing what the real deliberations are.

i am trying to explain what i had prepared for today to say this is the process the chairs propose.

royfielding: i don't see value in closing issues just because there is a new june draft. there is small number of issues we have managed to close. I don't think new and old issues are comparable.
... the notion of closing issues as a beaurocratic matter is wrong. the idea is that when we go to last call and go to cr we have a record of all the issues.....

<dsinger> I note that compliance only has 33 open issues <http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products>. It shouldn't be too hard to go through them but give them a little thought each.

if we close based on nondecision we have to go further. doesn't make sense to me. I encourage chairs to make use of other status in issue tracker to note when issue not closed. I don't think clean slate is worthwhile.

peterswire: one thing that has happened in compliance spec is that many issues seemed interdependent so people were reluctant to close almost anything. One goal for next period is to know what is up for grabs, what people are working on.

so working with staff we think having one draft and one set of issues will provide maximum clarity and people will know what is disucssed.

<jchester2> +q

johnsimpson: this clarifying sort of situation i am perhaps remarkably dense, perhaps from being on vacation. so i understand you are closing all issues with june draft and it is incumbent on us to propose new text if we want an issue to remain open, right?

peterswire: that's correct.

johnsimpson: but there is language on a number of issues that was proposed that is not in the text so should we find it and re-propose if we think it's really really important?

peterswire: it doesn't have to be that important. it's easier for you to know which things you want, which language than for me and w3c staff. You get to help us to understand your current view.

<fielding> To clarify, a closed issue in the W3C means that the WG has made a decision (using any of the available means to make a decision) and the topic is no longer to be discussed until new information is available that might overturn that decision. Closing issues for bureaucratic reasons is inappropriate because it messes up both the history of discussion and the record of what has been decided.

<rigo> me suggest to re-submit the text from the Working Draft into the right section of the June Draft

johnsimpson: example: in public draft there was security and fraud language with graduated response. this was dropped in june draft. other language was submitted. so your advice would be there should be 2 submissions re issue, and if not they will not be considered.

<Chris_IAB> johnsimpson, to clarify, the first submission did not have graduated response language, but Roy did propose it later...

<fielding> It would make more sense to create a new product in the issue tracker, specific to the new draft, and only assign those issues to the new draft that still apply and are requested by someone.

peterswire: yes, if you think there should be language re graduated response then propose to list. If we think your language and chris's are same issue we will combine, if different, not.

<aleecia> queue later

<aleecia> sorry

<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to comment on issues

<npdoty> to clarify 12 open issues, 33 includes pending review

<rigo> +1 to dsinger

<marc_> I remain unclear how "consensus" will be decided or conflicting proposals will be resolved over the next 5 weeks. Some more clarification would be helpful to the entire group.

dsinger: can i suggest we open have 33 open issue and many can be marked or split and someone could go through for an hour and mark, retain, split.

<Chris_IAB> peterswire, to clarify (respectfully), are you telling us how it's going to be, or are you asking for feedback on your proposed new process?

<npdoty> I think peterswire's point to dsinger is that even if we retain the same 12 issues, we'd need to clarify what the text proposals (in diff from the June draft)

peterswire: david you have a lot of experience so let me ask you. concern has been there have been many rounds. doing the archaeology re: someone's preferred language seems a difficult task. Proposal to have little archaeology.

dsinger: you are talking about issues with work done on them. take def of tracking. June draft has one. SO i suggest moving to pending review.

<Chris_IAB> peterswire, to clarify (respectfully), are you telling us how it's going to be, or are you asking for feedback on your proposed new process? I'm not being cheeky, just want to understand.

<aleecia> npdoty, could you please enqueue jmayer

peterswire: i am not hung up on issue number. one variation is "issue 5 open, on tracking, and people beginning today submit preferred language.

thomas do you have advice?

<aleecia> thanks, sorry, losing syntax

<dsinger> I'm just asking that each issue be considered, and if its status changes, there are notes to explain what and why, that's all.

tlr: 2 concerns: 1) roy's to keep the record and not conflate closed or put aside for admin reasons with closed with or without prejudice. Roy right? (roy: yes).

<dsinger> I completely agree some can now be closed; because they are not relevant, because they have been split into more specific issues, and so on. Some can be postponed, and so on.

<dsinger> Some can go into 'pending review' as the June draft addresses them.

<npdoty> we could keep open issues, but still ask that everyone send their considered text proposals still needed for that issue (so that we don't have to search for every previous text proposal when going through the decision process)

tlr: second set of concerns have 2 competing goals. we have significant but incomplete state of affairs in records. I have tried to spend time on this and have had to do archaeology or ask people state of affairs. Bottom line is tracker is not in very good shape.

<dsinger> I completely support cleaning up the tracker; I just want it done with a little thought, and tracing notes, on each issue. That's all.

tlr: so second set of concerns is we have a lot of good material in previous editor's draft, lot of good material in tracker, but not very orderly tracker. Need to know what people are currently supporting.

<Chris_IAB> peterswire, to clarify (respectfully), are you telling us how it's going to be, or are you asking for feedback on your proposed new process? I'm not being cheeky, just want to understand.

tlr: process will allow us to collect very quickly a list of where the real issues are. And i would like to ask indulgence to have a clean split for current issues and structure for coming weeks. But roy's point of keeping rercord is well taken.

<dsinger> …a new product is fine by me, and leaving the old one alone.

tlr: so will suggest slight modification to process. suggest we leave the issues in compliance spec alone. asking everyone's help to make sure we have a clean set of issues to work against.

may be similar list of issues to those in trackers, but looking for your support to get clean, currently live set of issues to work against. We are asking for your help. Roy's concern is well taken but i think we can address it.

<aleecia> unmute aleecia

peterswire: thomas has made a proposal that seems sensible to me and i will go through queue to see if any reaction.

<aleecia> (have muted locally)

<npdoty> tlr proposal: new product Compliance June, on which we create issues around specific text proposals to the June draft, leaving existing Compliance issues alone (although in some cases they will be directly connected to a Compliance issue)

jeffchester: I have real process concerns. as a member of very small ngo group/civil society, one week is not sufficient to do this kind of hard work. I don't want to have to drop everything i am doing. I have a feeling w3c is trying to rush this. 1 week not sufficient.

<Chris_IAB> +1 to Jeff Chester (1-week is not enough time)

jeffchester: peter i cannot see you endorsing.

<dsinger> I think if we leave the open issues 'as is' on the old product, then we're clear. we can then review them as needed. Thomas' approach seems fine to me.

<tlr> thanks, David

peterswire: we have a deadline, and I am trying to move the process under the deadline. we have tried to see if we can get to closure.

jeffchester: giving the group a week to make substantial proposals on this does not do service to this crucial privacy measure.

royfielding: re: tlr proposal, i suggest one change. If an issue exists it should be possible to pull it out, not renumber issue, and attach to new doc. Almost identical but not with new numbers.,

tlr: ok for old issues, but not for new ones that mix issues.

roy: leave that to chairs

tlr: +1

<npdoty> we may not need a whole bunch of new text, where some issues are going to be presenting the text that we have already

chris_iab: is this a proposal or are you telling us how it will be done.

<tlr> +1 to Nick

peterswire: this is proposed approach, subject to discussion/modification, and we will see what the group decides.

aleecia: i think i agree with goals but i am extremely concerned with way it's going in practice. what i hear from thomas is we will not just have clean slate but really clean state, so no issues live unless re-raissed. so ojectiions to having to sustained objections to sustained objectsions.

<tlr> if you have been talking about something over 2.5 years, there should be at least a viable text proposal.

<dsinger> To be clear: what I hear Thomas proposing is that we create a new 'product', and open issues against that. That we *leave the issues* on the existing product, and will go through them at some point to make sure that they are addressed, etc. I can live with that. I even volunteer to help the pass on the old issues.

<npdoty> I think tlr is suggesting that we need a process to clarify specific alternate text proposals requiring collaborative work, rather than generating new text or new objections

<jchester2> I request that Thomas, on behalf of the W3C, send a letter to the group--which should be made public--given the rationale for the process he has proposed.

<rigo> what is a viable text that opposes the inclusion of text?

<Chris_IAB> to clarify, I don't have real issue with the new process being proposed, just the very tight timeline

<tlr> rigo, "change proposal: Strike section foo"

aleecia: it's frustrating if you did not have time to look at things in that week or two. I would be in favor of extending the deadline. we have done it before. Draft is more readable. We have things we cannot decide in 6 weeks. we are not at last call.

<tlr> rigo, that's a one-liner

<rigo> on a moving target? That's what Aleecia complains about ...

<jchester2> It can't be done in the time frame proposed. It's setting up the privacy issues to fail.

aleecia: i am willing to put in more time. So 1) extend the charter, 2) i think that asking us to re-raise things in 2 weeks is unreasonable.

<dwainberg> the charter runs to 4/2014, right?

<Chris_IAB> peterswire, tlr, and npdoty, to clarify, I don't have real issue with the new process being proposed (that process seems reasonable), just the very tight timeline-- it's too tight, with the new process, and the only thing at stake here is the Internet.

peterswire: so i hear proposal to extend the charter. I have been operating with the sense that many people do not want to extend. one of the things re: sustained objections, is we have tried to make it as easy as possible.

<rigo> tlr, which is in tension to moving forward. I think it is a question of mechanics

<Chris_IAB> dwainberg, get on the cue to ask that good question

<Chris_IAB> +q

<rigo> tlr, perhaps create an issue on "same-party" and note her opposition there

<npdoty> dwainberg, I think the suggestion is more specifically changing the timeline to change the Last Call date, which might ultimately need to extend the charter

<aleecia> cannot hear

the june draft was less than 7 pages. I think it should be a short matter. The idea is to push now so we do not have to push into fall and winter. This is what i think group has been saying instead of extend charter.

<johnsimpson> lots of background noise

<aleecia> to be clear, I had two proposals. One was extend the deadline. The other was: do not do this "clean slate" approach on issue management.

<jchester2> +Aleecia

jmayer: 2 points: on using june draft. with a week, can't produce new text in 1 week so we will go to old text and will end up where we were before. so we are trying to de-clutter but may end up re-cluttered very shortly.

<npdoty> aleecia, what did you think about fielding/tlr on new product, which may create new issues or move issues onto a new product?

<jchester2> I think Jonathan's idea is a good one.

jmayer: peter has suggested we consider alternatives, and i am not process with chair reconciliation so i suggest we consider contingency plans. suggest we get back to substance. has been a month since we worked through substantive compliance issues.

a slightly different approach would be to come up with various compromise proposals. that would be my alternative process proposals.

<dsinger> For the record, I think the old compliance document was enough of a mess to be almost unworkable, and that the June document is a much better basis going ahead.

<aleecia> npdoty, as I said: I think it is a bad idea. It will turn the current issue list into an historic archive.

chris_iab: dwainberg asked good question. when does current charter expire? want to understand charter deadline vs. wedding deadline.

<npdoty> aleecia, I thought fielding's amendment was intended to prevent that, by keeping and moving issues that do fit text proposal diffs

<aleecia> Wiping away 2.5 years of work while asking us to recreate it in 1 or at most 2 weeks is a big ask

tlr: charter runs to early 2014 but premised on timeline that assumes group goes to last call in july. In sunnyvale we agreed to press forward to last call deadline and i think it matters for once to stick to deadline.

<aleecia> npdoty, if we do that, I expect we will migrate about 80% or more of issues. Would be faster to find the 20% to drop, and in keeping with normal process

tlr: we can't just go on like this and keep extending deadlines. of course if as a group we can come to a single proposal on a particular issue but i don't think we should just go on and on talking so i support the approach of driving to july 31 to resolve set of very significant issues.

<dsinger> I think if we leave the issues on the current draft alone, then we don't lose the past. Giving us a clean product makes sense; keeping the history visible and usable also makes sense.

chris_iab. I don't have issues with process but have issues with the timeline during the season of vacations, etc. it will take time for people to pivot to new approach whether better or not.

peterswire: heard 3 approaches: mine/staff's, aleecia's to extend, jmayer, contingency plan to work toward closure.

<kulick> yes, that is kulick

peterswire: propose we raise each with +1/-1. then see what group decides.

<jchester2> Peter: Who is missing from the call and this vote?

so 1) decision now to say no last call deadline July 31. call on aleecia to say if that's proposal.

aleecia: yes, propose publishing another working draft and extend deadline for last call.

tlr: do you have another deadline that we could really stick to?

<WileyS> Cant hear at all now

<jchester2> too much noise

<Chris_IAB> can't hear due to background noise

aleecia: happy to accept friendly amendment of another date for last call doc, and would suggest looking through issues to do this. Am hard pressed to see how we get to closure on permitted uses and what it means to de-identify data in time for last call.

<rigo> can peter mute/unmute? #60 is mute and #61 is unmute

aleecia: would leave those open, and how can we go to last call without those. I don't see how we get there.

<kulick> that noise should not be me

<rigo> or it is 60#

aleecia: suggest going through issues to get there.

<aleecia> painful for me too

<johnsimpson> we keep getting background noise..

<jchester2> That's a reasonable process that Aleecia is proposing. Otherwise the process adopted by WC3 appears to be designed not to address key concerns.

chris_iab: am i the only one hearing all background noise. OK better. all this about deadlines....I run an industry working group and i appreciate that we want to bring work to logical end but that's the key, "logical end."....

<npdoty> W3C groups have in the past gone to Last Call without closing every single issue, Last Call is an attempt to close enough issues that it can be revealed to wider public review

<fielding> I think the WG should be terminated if we can't agree on a resolution to ISSUE-5 (definition of what it is the user is asking to turn off) in the next two weeks.

chris_iab: we are talking about something with massive effect on billions of dollars, way industry run. I like new process and roy's suggestions, but also aleecia's suggestion to look at issues to determine a new deadline. then we are talking about new firm deadline.

<dsinger> notes to fielding, that the June draft has a definition that matches what we've been saying for at least a year...

<johnsimpson> Interesting thought, Roy Fielding

chris_iab: i agree with jmayer that if we don't get there we then pull plug. I am worried about pivot time. I dont want to put internet at risk bc i have vacation.

<fielding> dsinger, it matches what you have been saying … not the group, and is completely inconsistent with the other decisions we have made.

peterswire: as email to group has said we have been going around on these issues.

<tlr> peter, hit "hide keypad", then you'll have a mute buton

<peterswire> thx!

<dsinger> fielding, offline I'd like to hear what's inconsistent from your perspective

mike zaneis: reacting to suggestions put forward. when charter extension has come up in past, then people want to revisit original charter bc a lot has changed re: browser controls etc. So if we have discussion of whether group goes on....

<peterswire> close q

<johnsimpson> think Roy is concerned that it would mean first parties are tracking...

should discuss under what mission. Maybe charter is not appropriate in scope......so if we can have the discusison if charter is extended then we should. Without saying whether i support extending.

<Chris_IAB> Mike could be right-- we may need to reduce the scope to something less controversial and divisive, in order to get consensus on something meaningful

peterswire: my understanding is this would not be extension of charter but last call.

mike zaneis: i understand but it seems that based on that whole group would have to be extended.

<Chapell> If we need to move Last Call, pursuant to the current timeline, we will need to extend the charter

<npdoty> wanted to make the point that Last Call isn't the end of work or the finalization of everything, there are three additional milestones after Last Call

<dan_auerbach> -1 to extending the last call deadline

scribe: august will be dead month. have to think about how much more time in fall. Will push back testing. So then should discuss extending charter.

<fielding> The inconsistency is that users do not want all personalization to be turned off -- what they want is not to be followed across unrelated contexts, and thus not have their activity on one site shared or known by other sites. That's what do not track means to them, and that's what we should define it as meaning for our drafts.

<npdoty> Last Call is a chance to get wider public review and more feedback from implementers

tlr: so do you support july 31 deadline?

<dan_auerbach> without evidence that we will make substantive progress

mike zaneis: i think we should try, but if we don't succeed let's discuss scope of charter.

<Chapell> Fielding +1 - although that assumes we agree on the definition of "unrelated contexts"

mattias: agree that just because some of us on holiday we should not break the internet. shifting from 2 year discussion mode to 3 week panic mode is radical.

dsinger: compliance draft is not organized hard to understand. June draft helps. Let's see what the real issues are then see whether we need to extend.

<jchester2> David's analysis is correct, in my view. We need to examine the current state of the text.

<aleecia> +1

<dan_auerbach> -1

<johnsimpson> -1

<Mike_Zaneis> -1

peterswire: so +1 means you want to extend right now.

<robsherman> -1

<hefferjr> +1

<dan_auerbach> without evidence htat we will make progress

<schunter> +1

<rigo> +1


<moneill2> -1

<mecallahan> +1

<jchester2> -1

<Chris_IAB> +1

<fielding> -1

<dwainberg> +1

<npdoty> +1 publish a working draft and extend the last call deadline; -1 to oppose

<ninjamarnau> 0

<dsinger> -1 (not until we do the research)

<Ari> +1

<npdoty> -1

<peter-4As> +1

<ChrisPedigo_OPA> -1

i agree with davd and jeff that in a couple weeks we may be in better position to decide.

<johnsimpson> -1

<Chapell> -1

peterswire: can someone do rought count.

<laurengelman> -1

<peterswire> -1

<aleecia> about 9 +1

<dsinger> about 9 -1

<Chris_IAB> lol

<npdoty> 15 -1s

<dan_auerbach> it sounds to me like several of the -1s agree that we need to first make progress

<dan_auerbach> before switching to +1

<dsinger> but some more came by as I was counting

<Lmastria_DAA> -1 let's push and revisit

<WileyS> That's so unusual for this group :-)

<dan_auerbach> just a sec

peterswire: can you say what you are trying to express on irc.

<wseltzer> [the sum appears to be -4]

<Chapell> -1 let's push and revisit - may need to revisit charter as well tho

<hwest> It's hard to make progress when all we do is debate process.

<dan_auerbach> +q

<laurengelman> I agree with singer

<laurengelman> substantive discussion based on past record

peterswire: split but no consensus to extend. Now jmayer proposal to go to contingency plan if not wound up by july and look at compromise proposals, without renumbering issues.

<johnsimpson> cannot understand!!!!

<jchester2> hard to hear

<dan_auerbach> i didn't want to interrupt -- i'm in transit to talking is difficult -- but i think several people including David, myself Jeff, Susan, that we shouldn't extend right now

<aleecia> Jonathan, can we just get the proposal to +1 or -1?

<aleecia> Noting time is tight

<dan_auerbach> my way of framing that is to say that we need to make progress first

jmayer: that's it. get back to substantive work. should be proud of what we have done so far. have come to fork in road. think june draft whitewashes disagreements, or could move goalpost, go to chair decisions, and i am not comfortable with either.
... want to come up with contingency plan.

peterswire: so not use chair decision, talk substance in next period, have contingency plan if no last call.

<aleecia> So is this: +1 to discuss how we *would* shut down?

jmayer: yes, not super-wedded to how we proceed.

<npdoty> what's the positive proposal? just discuss compromises until end of July?

peterswire: so if no chair decision and no extension how should we spend time til end of july.

<rigo> process is good, please use mine...

<jchester2> Jonathan's approach is reasonable and is, in my opinion, the honorable way to proceed.

jmayer: ask stakeholder orgs to put together compromise proposals. {didnt catch other alternative}. prefer giving up to coming up with false consensus.

<dsinger> count is +1 : 13; -1: 19. Nick seems to have voted both ways

<dan_auerbach> (I was getting on the queue earlier to explain my IRC comment)

<peterswire> thx to dan

<dsinger> oops, then it's +1: 12, -1: 19

chris_iab: reply to jonathan and mike. If there is core set of things we don't agree on maybe we need to re-evaluate scope of group. Maybe we have bitten off too much. Is there something we can do as a group that is a meaningful step forward?

<laurengelman> instead of having "stake holder groups" make compromise positions, why not have some of the more moderate members create compromise proposals and the top 5 remaining open controversial issues.

doesn't mean would drop everything for future. Maybe the way to do that is scope alteration.

<aleecia> +1

lmastria: wanted to react to one proposal jmayer made: I think we did come up with compromises in sunnyvale. It strikes me that the june draft is moving in that direction, to compromise. So not sure why we would need to do that again.

jmayer: i think the proposal i have in mind is compatible with document.

<dan_auerbach> having trouble hearing jonathan

[i can't hear jonathan well enough to scribe]

<johnsimpson> cannot hear jonathan, can he put it in IRC?

<dsinger> Could jmayer type his proposal in? Mine is to develop asap our issue list with the june draft, using it and the current compliance issue list, and see where we are.

<aleecia> sorry -

npdoty: i am not sure i caught jmayer last point, but i think he suggested we work on june draft. Is it different from chair's proposal? Not sure what we would be voting on.

peterswire: hard to get crisp sense of jmayer proposal. discuss contingency plan if no resolution by end of july?

<peterswire> close q

<Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to ask for a ten-word description of Jonathan's proposal, to which we could +1/-1

jmayer: maintain longstanding decision process and don't rush through new process of consensus and then develop contingency plan if last call draft is not resolved by end of july.

<dan_auerbach> how about: work hard issue by issue, determine consensus or lack thereof by longstanding decision process, make contingency plan if lack of consensus persists

<fielding> -1 on "long-standing decision process" because what jmayer means by that is we continue failing to use the W3C documented process.

jmayer: to decide on that text, use longstanding decision process.

<jchester2> So there are 2 proposals. One would be on what we do next in terms of issues, and not try and review all the issues in the next week. We pick key issues to discuss. Next is that we prepare a contigency plan.

<npdoty> jmayer proposal: a) maintain decision process and not use the chair reconciliation; and, b) develop a contingency plan

peterswire: first: longstanding decision process, second, contingency plan if no decision.

<npdoty> we have long had the decision process in place for issues that cannot be resolved otherwise, and we have a set of issues that have proven difficult to resolve

mattias: longstanding decision process hasn't work so we have to change something fundamentally. at risk of.....[can't hear]

<jchester2> it was hard to hear

<schunter> Never mind.

<schunter> OK.

<schunter> My suggestion was to make more use of the chairs decisions (since we did not move and cannot move on some open issues with the long standing process).

royfielding: i think jmayer description of longstanding decision process is a non-decision process. Most w3c groups actually close issues whether they all agree or not, but they recognize they have discussed.

<ChrisPedigo_OPA> -1

<npdoty> jmayer proposal: contingency plan for end of July, and working without using chairs' reconciliation proposal

<peterswire> -1

call for +1/-1

<WileyS> -1

<npdoty> -1

<schunter> -1

<johnsimpson> +1 to contingency planning

<dan_auerbach> +1

<dsinger> -1


<hefferjr> -1

<robsherman> -1

<Lmastria_DAA> -1

<fielding> -1

<Chris_IAB> -1

<jackhobaugh> -1

<kulick> -1

<Chapell> +1

<peter-4As> -1

<moneill2> +1

<Ari> -1

<jchester2> +1 contigency planning

<kj_> -1

<rigo> -1

peterswire: more -1 than +1.

<WileyS> 5 +1s vs. 18 -1s

<npdoty> ... and articulated support for contingency planning

<jchester2> +q

peterswire: near end of time. have chair proposal. Considered alternatives, which did not get majority support. so no alternative received more support than w3c proposal.

<tlr> I think Roy and I are agreeing. Will send instructions, and we will have *much* more information a week from now.

<Chris_IAB> peterswire, I think there was one more proposal that hasn't been discussed

<johnsimpson> can we get a precise written guide on way forward as agreed today?

<jchester2> We are missing it appears other NGO and also EU representatives. Can Peter address how that impacts his decision.

peterswire: will have issues you want to raise that will be affirmatively raised in 1 week. Will see on public list. Will look at text. Clarify issues.

<jchester2> -q

<jchester2> +q

<jchester2> unmute me

jeffchester: i sort of want to underscore what john simpson just asked. want precise written guide on how to proceed in next week. decision must be reviewed by policy makers, public, justin not on call, rob had to leave. do need something in writing.

<johnsimpson> Thank you

peterswire: agree we will get something in writing:

chris_iab: there was a hybrid proposal which was to move forward and re-evaluate if we don't get to consensus

peterswire: that's consistent with the idea of evaluating July 24.
... i hope we work well and effectively and can get to last call but recognize it's not inevitable.

jmayer: clarifying question. I though we just agreed on firm deadline. But now you said we will reconsider.

peterswire: i did not mean to change what i said. would take an affirmative decision of group to extend if we work diligently and don't get to last call. I don't support that.

<Lmastria_DAA> -

peterswire: we will get you more information.


<dsinger> thx

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-06-19 17:30:57 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: susanisrael
Inferring Scribes: susanisrael

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: +1.703.265.aaaa, npdoty, cblouch, Fielding, Craig_Spiezle, +1.215.286.aabb, +1.703.993.aacc, +1.212.768.aadd, Aleecia, paulohm, +1.202.347.aaee, +1.202.210.aaff, +1.202.331.aagg, susanisrael?, +1.202.787.aahh, jackhobaugh, Rigo, +1.646.827.aaii, Brooks, jchester2, waltmichel, marc_, dwainberg, vinay, moneill2, Keith_Scarborough, dsinger, +1.650.595.aajj, +1.781.482.aakk, [DAA]?, +1.937.215.aall, +1.609.258.aamm, +1.408.836.aann, efelten, hefferjr, samsilberman, BerinSzoka, +1.415.470.aaoo, Jonathan_Mayer, +1.240.994.aapp, Peder_Magee, WileyS, Yianni, +49.431.98.aaqq, ninjamarnau, rsherman, wseltzer, billscannell, +1.917.934.aarr, Chris_IAB, +1.310.292.aass, [Microsoft], sidstamm, hwest, johnsimpson, [FTC], omer_tene, +31.65.141.aatt, rvaneijk, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.639.aauu, peterswire, laurengelman, thomas
Present: +1.703.265.aaaa npdoty cblouch Fielding Craig_Spiezle +1.215.286.aabb +1.703.993.aacc +1.212.768.aadd Aleecia paulohm +1.202.347.aaee +1.202.210.aaff +1.202.331.aagg susanisrael? +1.202.787.aahh jackhobaugh Rigo +1.646.827.aaii Brooks jchester2 waltmichel marc_ dwainberg vinay moneill2 Keith_Scarborough dsinger +1.650.595.aajj +1.781.482.aakk [DAA]? +1.937.215.aall +1.609.258.aamm +1.408.836.aann efelten hefferjr samsilberman BerinSzoka +1.415.470.aaoo Jonathan_Mayer +1.240.994.aapp Peder_Magee WileyS Yianni +49.431.98.aaqq ninjamarnau rsherman wseltzer billscannell +1.917.934.aarr Chris_IAB +1.310.292.aass [Microsoft] sidstamm hwest johnsimpson [FTC] omer_tene +31.65.141.aatt rvaneijk Chris_Pedigo +1.202.639.aauu peterswire laurengelman thomas

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 19 Jun 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/19-dnt-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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]