15:01:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:01:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-dnt-irc
15:01:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:01:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:01:38 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:01:39 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:01:39 <trackbot> Date: 24 July 2013
15:39:17 <Walter> Walter has joined #dnt
15:43:46 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:46:16 <Kim_Smouter> Kim_Smouter has joined #dnt
15:49:48 <tlr> zakim, this will be track
15:49:48 <Zakim> ok, tlr; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:49:59 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:50:00 <Zakim> +??P0
15:50:57 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:50:59 <Zakim> -npdoty
15:50:59 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:51:39 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P0 is schunter
15:51:39 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
15:51:41 <Zakim> +??P17
15:51:42 <npdoty> chair: schunter
15:51:49 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:51:58 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:52:06 <Chris_IAB> just joined via a private number
15:52:14 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P17 is Chris_IAB
15:52:14 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB; got it
15:53:41 <Zakim> + +31.20.589.aaaa
15:54:04 <jackhobaugh> jackhobaugh has joined #dnt
15:54:17 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
15:54:28 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:54:31 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
15:54:34 <Zakim> - +31.20.589.aaaa
15:54:35 <Zakim> + +1.202.253.aabb
15:54:42 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: npdoty (13%)
15:55:02 <npdoty> Zakim, aabb is MikeZ
15:55:02 <Zakim> +MikeZ; got it
15:55:07 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aacc
15:55:17 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
15:55:19 <Mike_Zaneis> Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
15:55:19 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:55:22 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
15:55:23 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
15:55:26 <JC> JC has joined #DNT
15:55:29 <tara> tara has joined #dnt
15:55:33 <npdoty> Zakim, MikeZ is really Mike_Zaneis
15:55:33 <Zakim> +Mike_Zaneis; got it
15:55:49 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:55:50 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
15:55:53 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:56:00 <BillScannell> BillScannell has joined #dnt
15:56:16 <Zakim> + +1.650.283.aadd
15:56:26 <Zakim> + +1.215.286.aaee
15:56:27 <tara> zakim, aadd is me
15:56:27 <Zakim> +tara; got it
15:56:33 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:56:50 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
15:56:50 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
15:56:51 <Zakim> +Thomas
15:56:58 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
15:57:09 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (66%)
15:57:12 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
15:57:18 <Zakim> +efelten
15:57:21 <npdoty> Zakim drop aacc
15:57:25 <npdoty> Zakim, drop aacc
15:57:25 <Zakim> + +1.917.934.aaff
15:57:25 <Zakim> +1.646.654.aacc is being disconnected
15:57:27 <Zakim> - +1.646.654.aacc
15:57:31 <Zakim> +jackhobaugh
15:57:32 <Zakim> + +1.650.365.aagg
15:57:42 <David_MacMillan> David_MacMillan has joined #dnt
15:57:44 <susanisrael> Zakim, aaff is susanisrael
15:57:44 <Zakim> +susanisrael; got it
15:57:48 <Zakim> +JeffWilson
15:57:57 <peter-4As> peter-4As has joined #dnt
15:58:00 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:58:01 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:58:05 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
15:58:05 <Yianni> Yianni has joined #DNT
15:58:08 <Zakim> +Aleecia
15:58:09 <WaltMichel> zakim, aaee is WaltMichel
15:58:09 <Zakim> +WaltMichel; got it
15:58:18 <BrianH> BrianH has joined #dnt
15:58:19 <Zakim> + +1.646.654.aahh
15:58:27 <Zakim> + +1.202.257.aaii
15:58:29 <David_MacMillan> No, I am 650-365
15:58:33 <Zakim> +Joanne
15:58:36 <npdoty> Zakim, aagg is David_MacMillan
15:58:36 <Zakim> +David_MacMillan; got it
15:58:41 <Zakim> + +31.20.589.aajj
15:58:44 <eberkower> zakim, aahh is eberkower
15:58:44 <Zakim> +Bill
15:58:44 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:58:46 <Kim_Smouter> aajj is me
15:58:47 <mecallahan> mecallahan has joined #dnt
15:58:47 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
15:58:49 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:58:49 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:58:50 <paulohm> paulohm has joined #dnt
15:58:54 <npdoty> Zakim, aajj is Kim_Smouter
15:58:54 <Zakim> +Kim_Smouter; got it
15:59:02 <Zakim> +BrianH
15:59:10 <Zakim> +Craig_Spiezle
15:59:11 <BrianH> zakim 202.345 is BrianH
15:59:14 <Zakim> +Yianni
15:59:16 <Zakim> +rvaneijk
15:59:22 <Zakim> +??P48
15:59:26 <jchester2> jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:26 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
15:59:30 <Yianni> Zakim, mute me
15:59:30 <Zakim> Yianni should now be muted
15:59:39 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:39 <CraigSpiezleOTA> CraigSpiezleOTA has joined #dnt
15:59:42 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
15:59:43 <Zakim> +paulohm
15:59:45 <Walter> zakim, Ipcaller is Walter
15:59:45 <Zakim> +Walter; got it
15:59:47 <Zakim> + +1.650.595.aakk
15:59:55 <Zakim> +robsherman
15:59:56 <Zakim> +moneill2
15:59:58 <Zakim> +hefferjr
15:59:59 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:00:00 <Zakim> +Keith_Scarborough
16:00:02 <Zakim> +jchester2
16:00:03 <jchester2> zakim, mute me
16:00:03 <Zakim> jchester2 should now be muted
16:00:04 <Zakim> +dwainberg
16:00:12 <Marc> Marc has joined #dnt
16:00:16 <yrlesru> yrlesru has joined #DNT
16:00:17 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:00:23 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:00:25 <Keith> Keith has joined #dnt
16:00:28 <Zakim> +kulick
16:00:30 <Zakim> +Amy_Colando
16:00:35 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:00:44 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:00:45 <sidstamm> Zakim, Mozilla has me
16:00:45 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:00:46 <vinay> vinay has joined #dnt
16:00:50 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:00:51 <wseltzer> zakim, mute me
16:00:51 <Zakim> wseltzer should now be muted
16:00:52 <tlr> zakim, wh ois breathing?
16:00:52 <AdamP> AdamP has joined #dnt
16:00:52 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, tlr.
16:00:54 <Zakim> +Fielding
16:00:56 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Kim_Smouter (82%)
16:00:59 <Zakim> +vinay
16:01:07 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #DNT
16:01:12 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
16:01:13 <Zakim> -npdoty
16:01:27 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:01:28 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
16:01:30 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:01:30 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:01:33 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas
16:01:41 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:01:44 <Zakim> + +1.619.846.aall
16:01:45 <rachel_n_thomas> rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
16:01:48 <Zakim> +npdoty
16:01:50 <Zakim> +AdamPhillips
16:01:52 <Lmastria_DAA> Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt
16:01:53 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
16:01:59 <Zakim> +hwest
16:02:00 <james_irc_only> james_irc_only has joined #dnt
16:02:01 <Zakim> + +1.469.242.aamm
16:02:03 <ninjamarnau> ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:02:11 <yrlesru> zakim, aamm yrlesru
16:02:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aamm yrlesru', yrlesru
16:02:17 <jmayer> jmayer has joined #dnt
16:02:22 <tlr> zakim, aamm is yrlesru
16:02:22 <Zakim> +yrlesru; got it
16:02:24 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:02:25 <efelten> Zakim, mute me
16:02:25 <Zakim> efelten should now be muted
16:02:30 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:02:30 <npdoty> hober, did you just call in? aall
16:02:39 <yrlesru> jakim, aamm is yrlesru
16:02:40 <tlr> Scribe: npdoty
16:02:40 <Zakim> + +1.917.318.aann
16:02:45 <npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
16:02:46 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau
16:02:47 <Zakim> +Jonathan_Mayer
16:02:54 <npdoty> schunter: have been very busy for the past few months, like to take this call to take stock
16:02:59 <RonaldL> RonaldL has joined #dnt
16:03:05 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
16:03:13 <Chapell> zakim, aann is Chapell
16:03:13 <Zakim> +Chapell; got it
16:03:21 <Zakim> + +1.203.645.aaoo
16:03:22 <magee2023263538> magee2023263538 has joined #dnt
16:03:26 <tlr> ack thomas
16:03:40 <npdoty> ... curious about schunter chairing this call, tlr to fill in
16:03:41 <Zakim> +ChrisPedigoOPA
16:03:41 <rachel_n_thomas> zakim, aaoo is rachel_n_thomas
16:03:42 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas; got it
16:03:54 <yrlesru> Zakim, ??aamm is yrlesru
16:03:54 <Zakim> sorry, yrlesru, I do not recognize a party named '??aamm'
16:03:59 <npdoty> tlr: Peter sends his regrets and regards, moving house; thanks from Peter to Matthias to taking over for the call today
16:04:01 <matt> matt has joined #dnt
16:04:01 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:04:01 <Zakim> sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:04:08 <tlr> zakim, I am thomas
16:04:09 <Zakim> ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
16:04:10 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:04:10 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:04:21 <aleecia> aleecia has joined #dnt
16:04:23 <npdoty> schunter: agenda is rather short, received a lot of feedback on the decision on 215
16:04:28 <npdoty> ... would like to get even more feedback on the call
16:04:31 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:04:33 <Zakim> +??P93
16:04:34 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:04:38 <Lmastria_DAA> q+
16:04:45 <npdoty> ... then, we proposed a path forward, would like to gather feedback on that as well
16:04:55 <npdoty> ... then we have an item on audience measurement, and when to have the next call
16:04:58 <npdoty> q?
16:05:06 <yrlesru> zakim, aamm is yrlesru
16:05:06 <Zakim> sorry, yrlesru, I do not recognize a party named 'aamm'
16:05:09 <npdoty> ack Lmastria_DAA
16:05:16 <schunter> m
16:05:18 <laurengelman> I am here from an IP phone
16:05:29 <Zakim> +Dan_Auerbach
16:05:30 <yrlesru> zakim, mute me
16:05:30 <Zakim> yrlesru should now be muted
16:05:39 <Zakim> +[Adobe]
16:05:49 <npdoty> Lmastria_DAA: did want to note on issue 215, want to go back and point out some factual inaccuracies on memo Peter put out, will detail in the next few days
16:05:55 <dan_auerbach> dan_auerbach has joined #dnt
16:05:56 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:06:01 <Zakim> +BerinSzoka
16:06:03 <npdoty> ... the DAA program is much more robust than laid out in that document
16:06:32 <npdoty> ... looking to get those statements corrected, so that the Working Group knows what DAA program encompasses and doesn't
16:06:40 <npdoty> schunter: just asking for feedback on the agenda
16:06:43 <johnsimpson> q?
16:06:44 <npdoty> q+ Lmastria_DAA
16:06:57 <npdoty> ... anything missing for the agenda?
16:07:04 <Lmastria_DAA> q-
16:07:09 <npdoty> ... some feedback on the mailing list
16:07:16 <npdoty> Topic: WG Decision on 215
16:07:45 <npdoty> schunter: as a group we had to decide on working from the editors' draft and the DAA proposal, both were complete drafts addressing issues at hand, no clear consensus one way or another
16:07:47 <fielding> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, Chris_IAB, Mike_Zaneis, [Microsoft], tara, WaltMichel, Thomas (muted), efelten (muted), susanisrael, jackhobaugh, David_MacMillan, JeffWilson, Aleecia,
16:07:50 <Zakim> ... eberkower, +1.202.257.aaii, Joanne, Kim_Smouter, Bill, BrianH, Craig_Spiezle, Yianni (muted), rvaneijk, wseltzer (muted), RichardWeaver, Walter, paulohm, +1.650.595.aakk,
16:07:50 <Zakim> ... robsherman, moneill2, hefferjr, johnsimpson, Keith_Scarborough, jchester2 (muted), dwainberg, Brooks, kulick, Amy_Colando, [Mozilla], Fielding, vinay, WileyS, adrianba,
16:07:54 <Zakim> ... rachel_n_thomas, +1.619.846.aall, AdamPhillips, npdoty, hwest, yrlesru (muted), Chapell, ninjamarnau, Jonathan_Mayer, Peder_Magee, rachel_n_thomas.a, ChrisPedigoOPA,
16:07:54 <Zakim> ... laurengelman, Dan_Auerbach, [Adobe], BerinSzoka
16:07:54 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:07:55 <WileyS> Who promoted this to the editors draft?  Could we please place a decision on the table to go back to the April "true" editors draft?
16:07:56 <npdoty> ... so we used the decision procedure we agreed upon a few f2f's ago
16:08:12 <npdoty> ... look for the option with least substantive objection
16:08:22 <meme> meme has joined #dnt
16:08:24 <Zakim> +Joanne.a
16:08:24 <npdoty> ... this time with two, but the procedure could work with 3 or 4 or 5
16:08:26 <Lmastria_DAA> Agree with WileyS
16:08:26 <Marc> Matthias, you are breaking up.
16:08:27 <Chris_IAB> q
16:08:31 <Chris_IAB> q+
16:08:46 <npdoty> ... chairs' job is to evaluate the objections from the group, all the inputs, choice is not easy
16:08:51 <johnsimpson> q?
16:08:55 <aleecia> Matthias, it's impossible to understand you
16:09:08 <Chapell> Matthias - you are cutting out
16:09:08 <Chapell> I'm having trouble understanding you
16:09:11 <Ari> is anyone else having trouble with audio?
16:09:15 <WileyS> The group never agreed on the June Draft - this should be appropriately named the W3C Staff/Swire Draft
16:09:15 <npdoty> ... after these deliberations, propose to stick with the editors' draft/June draft, decision that we sent out, and compiled a document where we tried to detail the argument
16:09:16 <rvaneijk> q+
16:09:22 <npdoty> ... if there are errors, they should be corrected
16:09:26 <Chapell> q+
16:09:39 <Zakim> + +1.202.331.aapp
16:09:53 <npdoty> ... feeling was that the June draft was more likely to eventually get consensus from the group, even though there was support from both
16:09:57 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:10:00 <Walter> sound is not terribly good here either
16:10:03 <Marc> Was the intended basis for the co-chairs' decision "least strong objection?"
16:10:07 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (49%)
16:10:10 <Lmastria_DAA> The deliberations were premised on inaccuracies (at least as it relates to the DAA Program) regardless of the proposals. Therefore the results may be impacted
16:10:17 <jchester2> who is making the typing noise?
16:10:19 <npdoty> ... email sent out to the group
16:10:22 <npdoty> q?
16:10:23 <aleecia> Marc, least strong objection is the metric
16:10:23 <WileyS> +q
16:10:25 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:10:27 <susanisrael> * I think if Matthias speaks more slowly as well as louder I think it will help.
16:10:30 <wseltzer> ack next
16:10:30 <WileyS> -q
16:10:53 <npdoty> Chris_IAB: quite a few emails from both camps in the last week just trying to understand the process as it relates to W3C procedures
16:11:06 <aleecia> Having a draft replace the consensus draft, however, seems at best irregular.
16:11:08 <npdoty> ... not sure we can allow today's call to go on without a thorough discussion
16:11:29 <Marc> q+
16:11:42 <npdoty> ... had agreed with setting a hard deadline on July 24th, also agreed in Sunnyvale, if to extend to have a discussion about that
16:11:49 <Zakim> -Joanne
16:11:49 <efelten> Chris_IAB, did you mean to say *July* 31 deadline?
16:12:17 <npdoty> Chris_IAB: July 24th, time to get information in for a July 31st deadline
16:12:18 <efelten> Thanks, I think you might have misspoken before...
16:12:19 <aleecia> rigo, i could very readily find worse in this… this is me being polite. :-)
16:12:25 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:12:58 <tlr> q+
16:13:27 <npdoty> schunter: process was called chairs' decision or chairs' assessment of consensus, Nick can send out a link
16:13:46 <npdoty> Chris_IAB: agreed in Sunnyvale that it was good to set a deadline
16:13:55 <tlr> ack thomas
16:13:58 <rvaneijk> matthias , this is already the next agendaitem...
16:14:00 <npdoty> ... not what the stated procedure was going forward
16:14:15 <npdoty> tlr: appreciate if people were not talking over the chair
16:14:18 <WileyS> Thomas - much of this is captured in IRC notes
16:14:34 <WileyS> Okay - we'll wait until the next agenda item
16:14:36 <WileyS> +q
16:14:41 <aleecia> q+
16:14:46 <npdoty> ... we have an agenda, this item is about decision on issue 215, next agenda item is proposed path forward
16:14:47 <dwainberg> tlr, the chair is very difficult to hear on today's call
16:14:54 <npdoty> ... let's not conflate
16:14:56 <npdoty> q?
16:14:56 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:14:56 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:14:58 <schunter> q?
16:15:06 <npdoty> ack rvaneijk
16:15:12 <schunter> ack r
16:15:21 <johnsimpson> yes
16:15:35 <aleecia> q-
16:15:48 <npdoty> rvaneijk: don't want to interrupt, but if industry is unhappy with the decision, next step is to file a formal objection, all in the guidelines for the process
16:15:49 <tlr> correct.
16:16:10 <npdoty> ... just addressed the fact that there may be some factual errors, would that result in a new call for objections? as far as I'm concerned the question is closed
16:16:11 <Chris_IAB> Sorry, I may have misspoke:  I meant to say "July 24th deadline" NOT "June 24th deadline" -- appologies
16:16:13 <tlr> ack thomas
16:16:24 <johnsimpson> Are the factual errors relating to DAA/Industry proposal or to DAA Code?
16:16:45 <npdoty> schunter: if we misstate facts, that should be corrected; unlikely it leads to changing the decision because the decision is not based on one fact
16:16:53 <Lmastria_DAA> John, DAA Principles (aka Code)
16:17:05 <JJ> JJ has joined #dnt
16:17:09 <npdoty> ... if you don't like the decision, as said in the past, pinpoint updates to the text, or else do a formal objection
16:17:18 <rvaneijk> tnx.
16:17:24 <johnsimpson> Thanks, Lou. Can you point to them briefly.
16:17:33 <Lmastria_DAA> Matthias, it is not 1 fact...there are more
16:17:33 <npdoty> tlr: the chairs have discretion to re-open a decision if new information is available
16:17:43 <aleecia> if i might -- how are the DAA Principles relevant to the TPWG? many more folks will implement beyond DAA members, therefore we need to get the text into the standard, not import by reference
16:18:07 <npdoty> ... facts should be corrected, assessment is the basis of the decision
16:18:08 <npdoty> q?
16:18:08 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:18:09 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:18:09 <schunter> q?
16:18:10 <rigo> Lmastria_DAA: please send them to the list and we can correct them if they are factual
16:18:13 <johnsimpson> How did the June draft become an "editors' draft'?
16:18:21 <rigo> which I consider good bug reporting
16:18:21 <WileyS> Q?
16:18:24 <npdoty> ack Chapell
16:18:27 <Lmastria_DAA> Aleecia, the DAA Principles extend beyond the DAA Participants...this is one of the factual errors
16:18:35 <jeffwilson> jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:18:36 <aleecia> um.
16:18:40 <Marc> "Chairs sentiment of the weakest objection from the group" -- that is the standard for the decions then?
16:18:46 <jmayer> q+
16:19:01 <hober> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:19:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, Chris_IAB, Mike_Zaneis, [Microsoft], tara, WaltMichel, Thomas (muted), efelten (muted), susanisrael, jackhobaugh, David_MacMillan, JeffWilson, Aleecia,
16:19:04 <Zakim> ... eberkower, +1.202.257.aaii, Kim_Smouter, Bill, BrianH, Craig_Spiezle, Yianni (muted), rvaneijk, wseltzer (muted), RichardWeaver, Walter, paulohm, +1.650.595.aakk, robsherman,
16:19:04 <Zakim> ... moneill2, hefferjr, johnsimpson, Keith_Scarborough, jchester2 (muted), dwainberg, Brooks, kulick, Amy_Colando, [Mozilla], Fielding, vinay, WileyS, adrianba, rachel_n_thomas,
16:19:08 <Zakim> ... +1.619.846.aall, AdamPhillips, npdoty, hwest, yrlesru (muted), Chapell, ninjamarnau, Jonathan_Mayer, Peder_Magee, rachel_n_thomas.a, ChrisPedigoOPA, laurengelman, Dan_Auerbach,
16:19:08 <Zakim> ... [Adobe], BerinSzoka, Joanne.a, +1.202.331.aapp, Rigo
16:19:08 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:19:11 <npdoty> Chapell: chairs referred to five criteria, if those are the criteria for decision making, why wasn't that shared with the group beforehand? that would be useful
16:19:20 <hober> Zakim, aall is me
16:19:20 <Zakim> +hober; got it
16:19:21 <johnsimpson> What prompted the editors to adopt the draft?
16:19:23 <aleecia> Lou, I think you're saying that non-participants can follow the DAA Principles if they so choose, rather than claiming they're binding on non-members. Is that where you're going?
16:19:32 <tlr> ack thomas
16:19:37 <tlr> zakim, unmute me
16:19:37 <Zakim> Thomas was not muted, tlr
16:19:44 <npdoty> schunter: the main evaluation criteria are the inputs and the charter, in past meetings, described these five criteria
16:19:46 <Lmastria_DAA> Aleecia...no
16:19:49 <aleecia> ok
16:19:58 <aleecia> please clarify?
16:20:00 <npdoty> ... could have emphasized these five points, would be useful
16:20:13 <schunter> is my voice ok?
16:20:18 <npdoty> tlr: part of the framing of the path forward earlier this year, came out of Boston meeting
16:20:24 <dan_auerbach_> dan_auerbach_ has joined #dnt
16:20:24 <wseltzer> q?
16:20:32 <aleecia> q+
16:20:34 <Lmastria_DAA> we have and we will again
16:20:47 <npdoty> Chapell: disagree. agree they were mentioned in Boston where a percentage of WG was in attendance, but it came as a surprise to me that they're used as part of the decision
16:20:54 <schunter> lou?
16:21:11 <npdoty> ... a number of shifts in draft text in the past 6 months, seems odd that they were chosen and not communicated prior
16:21:15 <johnsimpson> q?
16:21:16 <Chapell> q+
16:21:17 <npdoty> ack Marc
16:21:17 <wseltzer> ack next
16:21:20 <aleecia> thank you, i'm trying to understand how DAA texts affect non-DAA members, any more than people not following the TPWG view of DNT would be bound by it
16:21:44 <Chris_IAB> Nick, can you please post a link to Issue 215?
16:21:46 <npdoty> Marc: can you clarify the standard applying in the decision for issue 215? was it the least weakest objections?
16:21:49 <npdoty> issue-215?
16:21:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-215 -- data hygiene approach / tracking of URL data and browsing activity -- closed
16:21:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/215
16:21:54 <aleecia> the objection that draws the least objection
16:22:06 <aleecia> er, the option that draws the least objection
16:22:08 <WileyS> "least strong objection"
16:22:09 <npdoty> tlr: the least strong objection
16:22:16 <npdoty> ... may have misspoken
16:22:24 <Marc> least strong or weakest objection is the standard
16:22:27 <npdoty> marc: can you walk us through the process for determining the least strong objection?
16:22:45 <wseltzer> ack WileyS
16:22:45 <aleecia> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/decision-policy.html
16:22:46 <WileyS> Many assumptions and references in the Memo of Explanation that the decision was pended on.
16:22:48 <npdoty> schunter: we tried to put the argument in the document, easier if you can go through the document and send specific feedback where you have questions
16:22:51 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:22:51 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:23:21 <rigo> no decision on editor
16:23:31 <rigo> no decision on editor's drafts, only on WD
16:23:31 <npdoty> WileyS: more fundamental question, curious how that supplanted the official editors' draft, never had a call for objections
16:23:54 <tlr> ack thomas
16:24:08 <npdoty> ... somehow supplanted, never considered the original editors' draft, many would argue that's a better starting place going forward, w3c staff and chairs draft which you call the June draft
16:24:45 <npdoty> tlr: happened on one of the calls shortly after that draft was proposed, the editors of the Compliance document agreed to adopt what was proposed as the June draft
16:24:57 <npdoty> ... heard concern about losing non-normative text, concern we need to address
16:25:01 <Chris_IAB> I don't remember the decision that the editor's draft and the June draft are the same??
16:25:18 <npdoty> ... further note issue-214 in Tracker on June draft about pieces of text from the April 30 draft that should be included
16:25:37 <Chapell> I'm confused - I thought I saw an email from Roy about the adoption of the June draft as editor's draft. If Not authorized by Roy, which of the editors turned the June draft into the editors draft?
16:25:54 <npdoty> WileyS: IRC +1/-1 seemed even, on two alternative options, no call for objection
16:26:05 <johnsimpson> Would it be appropriate to ask the editors -- Justin and Heather -- why they opted to make the June draft the editors draft?
16:26:08 <aleecia> there's a difference between an editors' draft and a consensus working draft
16:26:27 <npdoty> ... how do we formally get decision about considering the previous editors' draft on the table?
16:26:31 <aleecia> there can be multiple editors' drafts
16:26:43 <npdoty> schunter: sounds like the path forward?
16:27:03 <npdoty> WileyS: this is specifically to issue-215, only brought into consideration at the decision
16:27:15 <npdoty> ... never included the actual editors' draft
16:27:27 <aleecia> +1 to everything Shane just said
16:27:35 <npdoty> ... made a huge procedural miss in moving to w3c-staff/swire draft
16:27:38 <johnsimpson> I think the group needs consensus to publish a working draft.  I fear an editors draft is whatever the editors say it is.
16:27:46 <Chapell> +1 to Shane
16:28:07 <Chris_IAB> tlr, can you please support your position with proof from the IRC notes?  A link?
16:28:13 <npdoty> tlr: disagree, had the step of change proposals, have a relatively clear and comprehensible text, have a good sense of the issues against that draft
16:28:25 <npdoty> ... I do believe we need to address the non-normative text going forward
16:28:37 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:28:43 <aleecia> v. throw away the hard work of the WG over the past 2 years
16:28:49 <fielding> Thomas, a working group decision by the chairs is supposed to evaluate the objections provided by the working group participants, not invent objections based on external speaking points. Jeff Chester made an objection based on the FTC principles, which is why they were brought in. That does not justify bringing in comments from the FTC and EU commissioners. It doesn't make a difference for me, but we should be clear about what is appropriate to publish in a
16:28:50 <fielding> clearly predetermined and prewritten opinion of the chairs that is supposed to weigh the opinions of the group.
16:29:02 <npdoty> ... I hear your suggesting doing away with the hard work in writing change proposals, gathering them together, and working through the call for objections, back to square one
16:29:14 <rigo> aleecia, TLR ack'ed your issue-214, so your 2 years are preserved IMHO
16:29:43 <npdoty> ... change proposals were against the June draft, suggest that we work through those, still have issue 214 on the table to bring back pieces from the previous editors' draft
16:30:00 <aleecia> q?
16:30:06 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:30:06 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:30:12 <johnsimpson> q?
16:30:13 <npdoty> schunter: important point is the benefit of the June draft is that we have a set of potential resolutions rather than 20 balls in the air at the same time
16:30:42 <npdoty> ... the goal of this draft is not to say old work is wasted, just means we have a cleaner slate, now based on change proposals and old text try to create a good standard that is acceptable to the whole group
16:30:53 <npdoty> ... not that something is written in the text it cannot be changed
16:31:23 <rigo> Shane, are you asking to reconsider issue-215?
16:31:34 <npdoty> WileyS: don't doubt the positive intent, process driven by staff and co-chairs, majority of the WG disagreeing with a decision
16:31:50 <Zakim> -laurengelman
16:31:53 <wseltzer> q?
16:31:54 <dan_auerbach_> q?
16:31:56 <npdoty> ... when do you reconsider a move that you thought would be useful but that the group doesn't support
16:32:01 <wseltzer> ack jmayer
16:32:13 <npdoty> schunter: good point, will talk more with Thomas
16:32:19 <Chapell> ok - what's the resolution to Shane's question? Matthias has acknowledged that it is an important point and agreed to discuss wtih TLR
16:32:49 <npdoty> jmayer: procedural bar on amendments regarding issue-215, amendments related to the major points of the DAA proposal will not be re-considered
16:33:25 <npdoty> ... don't think anyone outside that proposal suggested dropping the requirement on no-unique-id's
16:33:26 <WileyS> Jonathan - its in 214 so it should still be allowed
16:33:30 <aleecia> rigo, not really, no
16:33:37 <wseltzer> q?
16:33:57 <npdoty> ... also on Shane's description of Yahoo proposal regarding de-identification
16:34:00 <aleecia> this is about amendments to the june draft, not about if the group continues
16:34:04 <Chapell> Jmayer - I had trouble understanding. Please type into IRC?
16:34:06 <wseltzer> ack aleecia
16:34:34 <npdoty> schunter: I think that's right as described, but best to have an understanding of what's best for the group
16:34:58 <fielding> Publication of a WD requires agreement of the working group. I know that no such agreement has been made because Aleecia very clearly objected, multiple times, and the chairs said we were not discussing that yet.  The issue-215 decision did not mention WD publication and did not request objections on publication of the June draft as a WD.
16:35:01 <npdoty> aleecia: agree with Shane. in order to replace a working draft or publish a last call working draft, we need to have consensus
16:35:39 <npdoty> ... rather than risk that, it makes more sense to check whether there is a preference for last working draft, go through the formal decision process to see which of these drafts we have a consensus on that
16:35:49 <fielding> note, we need agreement to publish a WD, not consensus
16:35:50 <npdoty> ... formal objections evaluated too late to be of any use
16:36:00 <tlr> the TAG has no role in this, fwiw
16:36:08 <Zakim> + +49.173.259.aaqq
16:36:13 <npdoty> ... next step would be involving the TAG
16:36:29 <npdoty> ... better would be to drop the i's/cross the t's, go through that exercise and make sure we do this correctly
16:36:31 <schunter> q?
16:36:35 <wseltzer> ack next
16:36:41 <fielding> s/drop/dot/
16:36:45 <jmayer> Is Matthias going to answer that?
16:36:52 <aleecia> where "thanks a lot" means "you will not be ignored" :-(
16:37:02 <aleecia> er, now. heh, best typo of the day
16:37:12 <npdoty> Chapell: I'm trying to understand if the goal is consensus, why release decision to the New York Times before the Working Group
16:37:24 <BrianH> BrianH has joined #dnt
16:37:25 <jchester2> Perhaps Thomas knows.
16:37:34 <npdoty> schunter: we sent it over the list, I don't know the timing with the NYT, but could ask Peter
16:37:50 <tlr> zakim, unmute me
16:37:50 <Zakim> Thomas should no longer be muted
16:37:52 <WileyS> Great question - did Staff send this information to the NY Times prior to releasing the decision to the working group???
16:38:12 <Chris_IAB> was it not a Chair/W3C decision to release to NYTimes-- I think that's the question, right?
16:38:21 <npdoty> Chapell: peter hasn't been particularly responsive, if that's peter's decision, then I'll delay and ask him
16:38:39 <npdoty> tlr: the decision went to the mailing list and then was reported by the NYT
16:38:55 <npdoty> ... not published by the NYT
16:38:58 <aleecia> to augment scribing: my proposal is this, we bring the "june draft" and the consensus draft to a decision. Anything less risks a great undoing later, and is disrespectful to the group members' time, and deeply challenges the very notion of consensus
16:39:08 <WileyS> HOURS slow???
16:39:16 <jchester2> Thomas, Didn't the W3C staff or co-chair contact reporters to offer them an advance embargoed copy of the decision?
16:39:17 <aleecia> Thomas, it's not an assertion, it's true
16:39:20 <Zakim> -Thomas
16:39:24 <npdoty> Chapell: blog post was before the mailing list message
16:39:33 <npdoty> tlr: we should move on
16:39:35 <rigo> q+
16:39:43 <jmayer> The NYT ran a draft of the decision. That suggests they had it prerelease. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/DNTJuly15.pdf
16:39:54 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
16:39:54 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
16:39:55 <Zakim> +Thomas
16:39:57 <Mike_Zaneis> The W3C leaked the Working Group decision to the New York Times at least 12 hours before the they announced the decision to the Working Group.  Just clarifying the record.
16:40:16 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:40:16 <Zakim> sorry, tlr, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:40:18 <aleecia> and while this doesn't sound like it matters much on a substantive level, hearing from Matthias that the decision was in place and solid is lovely. I imagine that's all anyone needed to hear.
16:40:21 <tlr> zakim, I am thomas
16:40:21 <Zakim> ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
16:40:25 <jchester2> The WC3 staff structured the release of the document--reaching out to reporters and setting the terms for the release.
16:40:26 <tlr> zakim, mute me
16:40:26 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:40:26 <npdoty> schunter: decision worked on by me and Peter, stable before sent to the group, review from W3C and Yianni
16:40:38 <npdoty> rigo: suggest we discuss this offline
16:40:44 <aleecia> What does "discuss offline" mean?
16:40:50 <jmayer> q+
16:40:54 <npdoty> Topic: Path Forward
16:41:02 <rigo> aleecia: email with facts to me and Thomas
16:41:08 <npdoty> schunter: we sent around a text, what we believe is a potential path forward
16:41:10 <Chris_IAB> NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Alan's question was not adequately answered.
16:41:34 <npdoty> ... take a step back, our goal was to fix the editors' draft to a point where we could reach consensus and publish a Last Call by the end of July
16:41:38 <rigo> copy an archived list, if you want to be sure
16:41:39 <aleecia> facts were just presented: NYT had the decision before the group. Not sure why we care, but it's pretty clear that was the case.
16:41:41 <npdoty> ... and then relax for a while :)
16:42:06 <npdoty> ... we didn't make that deadline, we have a draft, and a complete list of change proposals as text
16:42:19 <rigo> aleecia, I do not have evidence here and now and had no reason to go exploring
16:42:21 <aleecia> so Rigo, if you debate that, sure, do so. No need for email.
16:42:28 <npdoty> ... from my perspective, the path to continue is to take the draft and change proposals and go one-by-one, have an opportunity to be done in a finite time
16:42:41 <johnsimpson> What is the finite time that it will take to finish?
16:42:43 <jmayer> My question: The chairs' process, as I understand it, precludes any amendments unless 1) made before the deadline and 2) not related to the major points of the DAA Proposal. For example, going forward, we would not be able to drop the language limiting unique IDs, nor would we be able to consider Yahoo!'s de-identification proposal. Is that understanding correct?
16:42:58 <npdoty> ... since Peter will be absent for some time, could take a short break, two weeks without calls, and then come back and finish these documents
16:42:59 <rvaneijk> q?
16:43:03 <npdoty> ... would like to gather feedback
16:43:07 <rigo> jmayer, if you don't like, raise now
16:43:12 <jchester2> Mattias--can you answer Jonathan's question?
16:43:17 <fielding> q+
16:43:20 <WileyS> Jonathan, I made the amendment request outside of the industry proposal as well (with Rob) so its still in play there.
16:43:23 <aleecia> W3C happens in the open, and is transparent. I don't care if the NYT blew an embargo date. I do care when group questions are ignored and pushed to private email.
16:43:26 <npdoty> ... one feedback I've already recorded is that some people would prefer the old draft [April 30th]
16:43:36 <rigo> q- was only to get NYT offline, this is just a distraction
16:43:45 <rigo> q-
16:43:58 <dwainberg> q+
16:43:59 <jchester2> W3C staff structured the release and framing of the decision.
16:44:30 <npdoty> schunter: currently we are in better shape than we have ever been before, because we have concrete change proposals in writing and can now process each of these alternatives
16:44:31 <rigo> q+
16:44:33 <Chapell> Aleecia: I care because it demonstrates that this was a predetermined and prewritten opinion of the chairs rather than an attempt at building consensus
16:44:37 <Chris_IAB> Mattias, I'd like to enter Roy's email on process into this discussion.  I have not seen replies from co-chairs or staff to his email on process.
16:44:39 <npdoty> ... tried to summarize in this email
16:44:40 <johnsimpson> Are you saying no other amendments other than those already filed?
16:44:50 <johnsimpson> q+
16:44:51 <tlr> q+ to clarify one point
16:44:54 <aleecia> Alan: that's not at all my take.
16:44:54 <npdoty> ... the question is to gather feedback on the potential path forward, like it dislike it alternatives
16:45:05 <Zakim> -BerinSzoka
16:45:08 <aleecia> q+
16:45:12 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
16:45:12 <npdoty> ... not a decision right now, but gather feedback, discuss with peter, come back to the group with a proposal
16:45:20 <WileyS> Feedback = options on the table for moving forward?
16:45:21 <npdoty> ack jmayer
16:45:36 <aleecia> Alan: if the NYT had a decision before the comments came in, you'd have a point, but that does not appear to in any way be the case.
16:45:45 <npdoty> jmayer: re-ask prior question within the scope of path forward, process you're proposing going issue by issue working through amendments
16:45:53 <Chapell> Aleecia: then why not be open about it? I have lots of respct for Peter - I doubt he would release without full knowledge of w3c staff.
16:46:09 <npdoty> ... would it include preclusion I sent to the mailing list, amendments that weren't timely, or amendments that were part of the DAA proposal (215)
16:46:17 <tlr> ack thomas
16:46:18 <Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to clarify one point
16:46:25 <Chapell> yet, w3C staff is denying it.
16:46:27 <npdoty> schunter: would start with the concrete text on the table, rather than opening to arbitrary proposals on the table
16:46:33 <aleecia> Alan: and this is my frustration. A quick "yah, the timing on that fell over by a few hours" was all we need to be done.done.done with this topic. Rather than pushing to private email.
16:46:37 <Walter> q+
16:46:44 <tlr> ack thomas
16:46:49 <npdoty> jmayer: so you would consider it? or is it out of order?
16:46:55 <rigo> q-
16:47:20 <npdoty> tlr: if you look at the decision that was reached, and how it was described in call for change proposals, what we have before us is a set of change proposals
16:47:33 <npdoty> ... an interlinked set from NAI and a few others was looked at first
16:47:42 <npdoty> ... that proposal is, as such, off the table
16:47:58 <aleecia> Alan: at a substantive level, I think there is no actual issue here. The idea that a decision was in place but text to the group was still being word smithed, particularly with time zone issues, seems entirely plausible and reasonable.
16:48:00 <npdoty> ... Process is to go through the issues, some we have one or more texts,
16:48:25 <npdoty> ... ask for counter-proposals and wordsmithing
16:48:36 <npdoty> ... up to the discretion of the chairs on whether to re-open issues
16:48:41 <npdoty> ... some judgment required
16:48:44 <WileyS> "With additional counter proposals"
16:49:03 <npdoty> ... maybe we're seeing convergence towards that in one or two cases
16:49:12 <npdoty> ... that will take a little while, and a lot of work
16:49:34 <jchester2> Thomas--We need an answer to Jonathan's questions.
16:49:36 <Chapell> Aleecia: I'm not sure why the decision needed to be communicated to the press prior to the WG at all. Perhaps this is common in the W3C?
16:49:41 <npdoty> jmayer: didn't get an answer, is there estoppel at work regarding the decisions that have been made
16:49:51 <npdoty> tlr: the Working Group decision on ISSUE-215 stands
16:49:58 <npdoty> jmayer: so are those amendments prohibited in future?
16:49:58 <susanisrael> *Rigo, was that a serious comment?
16:50:09 <fielding> no, "those sorts" are not included in the objections considered.
16:50:11 <rvaneijk> if the answer is NO, than that is a serious problem
16:50:21 <johnsimpson> Can Shane propose the Red/Yellow/Green de-identification plan?
16:50:37 <npdoty> schunter: if on a particular issue we have multiple choices
16:50:48 <jmayer> "We will not revisit the choices presented in the DAA change proposal and rejected in this decision."
16:50:52 <hober> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:50:53 <fielding> zakim, who is speaking?
16:50:55 <Walter> rigo: it was not wise to frame it that way
16:51:00 <WileyS> John - Rob and I already proposed this outside of the Industry proposal
16:51:02 <jmayer> "Having considered the points above, we will not accept change proposals that are merely re-statements of these elements from the DAA proposal."
16:51:03 <Zakim> hober, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (85%), +49.173.259.aaqq (14%), Rigo (4%)
16:51:05 <npdoty> ... addressed already the package of proposals, wouldn't be fair to not consider perfecting amendments and change proposals
16:51:15 <Zakim> fielding, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: schunter (71%), +49.173.259.aaqq (14%)
16:51:17 <aleecia> Alan: I don't have a problem with the co-chairs notifying press about major decisions in the TPWG. I'm not sure why that would be problematic. At a social level, sure, no one hear likes reading about decisions in the press rather than on our mailing list. But it is not substantive.
16:51:19 <npdoty> ... don't want to blacklist all DAA text because it was not the preference of the group
16:51:25 <tara_> tara_ has joined #dnt
16:51:27 <hober> Zakim, mute aaqq
16:51:27 <Zakim> +49.173.259.aaqq should now be muted
16:51:27 <WileyS> "merely re-statements" == means we need to provide more than a restatement
16:51:39 <tlr> correct
16:51:44 <tlr> ack thomas
16:51:57 <npdoty> jmayer: seems to contradict the statement in the decision [about mere re-statements]
16:52:01 <aleecia> thomas, could you please not speak over a co-chair? :-)
16:52:04 <rigo> zakim, aaqq is probably ninjamarnau
16:52:04 <Zakim> +ninjamarnau?; got it
16:52:38 <npdoty> tlr: may be cases where text in the DAA proposal overlaps with existing change proposals on other issues (which we were trying to be careful about)
16:52:48 <schunter> q?
16:52:57 <npdoty> jmayer: said you were dancing around
16:53:06 <WileyS> Jonathan - "merely re-statements" == means we need to provide more than a restatement
16:53:09 <npdoty> tlr: to take an example, clean-ups in the DAA proposal
16:53:47 <npdoty> jmayer: the point of this decision, as described to the NYT, included rejection of other paths, and what I'm hearing is that it's not a rejection of other paths
16:54:10 <npdoty> tlr: no, that's not what you're hearing, won't accept re-statements of those substantive points
16:54:13 <npdoty> ... suggest moving into the queue
16:54:14 <johnsimpson> q?
16:54:14 <schunter> q?
16:54:18 <aleecia> ack fielding
16:54:34 <npdoty> fielding: the path you set forward, didn't seem to include calling for a WD publication
16:54:39 <tlr> +1
16:54:56 <npdoty> ... if another round, would like to have another WD publication, in dated space, that we can refer to publicly
16:54:56 <tlr> ack thomas
16:55:13 <jmayer> I honestly have no idea whether DAA-like text will receive consideration going forward. In which case... what was the point of that "decision"
16:55:14 <jmayer> ?
16:55:22 <npdoty> ... realize it may be difficult to publish a Working Draft, but not an excuse for not doing so
16:55:35 <rvaneijk> q?
16:55:39 <npdoty> ... respect the decision to continue working on the June change proposals, should not until we have another Working Draft
16:55:45 <aleecia> of note: Roy's proposal to publish a WD addresses my concerns from the prior agenda item
16:55:49 <Zakim> -hwest
16:55:53 <npdoty> tlr: agree that publishing the editors' draft as a next WD is logical
16:56:25 <rvaneijk> the logical next step is to assess ehether to proceed or nor: p. 9 + p. 25 if the explanatory memorandum !
16:56:40 <npdoty> ... past three months, about to reach slow season, appropriate to publish editors' draft as a working draft, with all the warnings
16:56:42 <aleecia> if we have consensus to do so, that is an acceptable way to address the issues Shane and i raised (acceptable to me, not necessarily to Shane :-)
16:56:51 <JJ> JJ has joined #dnt
16:56:51 <rigo> zakim, ninjamarnau is really Thomas_Schauff
16:56:51 <Zakim> sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'ninjamarnau'
16:57:00 <rigo> zakim, who is here?
16:57:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see schunter, Chris_IAB, Mike_Zaneis, [Microsoft], tara, WaltMichel, Thomas, efelten (muted), susanisrael, jackhobaugh, David_MacMillan, JeffWilson, Aleecia,
16:57:03 <Zakim> ... eberkower, +1.202.257.aaii, Kim_Smouter, Bill, BrianH, Craig_Spiezle, Yianni (muted), rvaneijk, wseltzer (muted), RichardWeaver, Walter, paulohm, +1.650.595.aakk, robsherman,
16:57:03 <Zakim> ... moneill2, hefferjr, johnsimpson, Keith_Scarborough, jchester2 (muted), dwainberg, Brooks, kulick, Amy_Colando, [Mozilla], Fielding, vinay, WileyS, adrianba, rachel_n_thomas,
16:57:05 <npdoty> schunter: that was to be part of the agenda
16:57:08 <Zakim> ... hober, AdamPhillips, npdoty, yrlesru (muted), Chapell, ninjamarnau, Jonathan_Mayer, Peder_Magee, rachel_n_thomas.a, ChrisPedigoOPA, Dan_Auerbach, [Adobe], Joanne.a,
16:57:08 <Zakim> ... +1.202.331.aapp, Rigo, ninjamarnau? (muted)
16:57:08 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:57:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see JJ, tara_, schunter, BrianH, dan_auerbach_, jeffwilson, meme, vincent, Brooks, aleecia, matt, magee2023263538, RonaldL, ChrisPedigoOPA, kulick, jmayer, ninjamarnau,
16:57:12 <Zakim> ... james_irc_only, fielding, Lmastria_DAA, rachel_n_thomas, Chapell
16:57:12 <Zakim> -Craig_Spiezle
16:57:33 <johnsimpson> q?
16:57:44 <Lmastria_DAA> not sure what zakim is asking me
16:57:46 <npdoty> ... we are aware there are people who would prefer the old draft, like to publish the current editors' draft as a Working Draft
16:57:54 <npdoty> ... publicly state this is an important document that is currently under consideration
16:57:55 <aleecia> could we finish the queue please
16:57:57 <fielding> FTR, I object to publishing the WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft
16:57:58 <aleecia> on the prior topic?
16:57:59 <rvaneijk> that may be important, but today we need to address whether to proceed first
16:58:03 <rigo> zakim, ninjamarnau? is really Thomas_Schauff
16:58:04 <Zakim> +Thomas_Schauff; got it
16:58:09 <npdoty> q?
16:58:21 <jmayer> I suspect the group may not support publishing the June Draft as a Working Draft.
16:58:27 <npdoty> schunter: continue with discussion/feedback on path forward, and then revisit WD publication
16:58:32 <aleecia> that's fine, then we know that
16:58:46 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
16:58:49 <jmayer> q+
16:58:51 <johnsimpson> q?
16:58:54 <fielding> I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition, or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed.
16:59:21 <npdoty> dwainberg: probably stating the obvious, so much ambiguity, confusion and mistrust about process, hard to move forward without getting crystal clear about the process and adopting documents and changes to documents
16:59:28 <Lmastria_DAA> dwainberg +1
16:59:29 <Zakim> +[Adobe.a]
16:59:39 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:59:48 <WileyS> +1 to what David just said - everyone in the working group (both sides) needs to have confidence on the process going forward.
16:59:54 <rvaneijk> Explenatory memorandum: p.9: Today’s	decision	seeks	to	summarize	the	chairs’	views	of	the	process	on	key	open	issues	in	 the	compliance	specification,	in	order	to	assist	in	that	assessment. p.25: Before	the	end	of	July,	the	group	will	discuss	whether	 and	how	to	proceed	in	light	of	the	current	Last	Call	deadline	scheduled	for	the	end	of	July.
16:59:56 <npdoty> ... one specific example assured we would not be surprised by issues being closed, wouldn't have to continue re-raising issues repeatedly
17:00:01 <npdoty> ... not what has happened
17:00:12 <aleecia> +1 to David on re-raising objections
17:00:13 <Walter> rvaneijk: that is a long and malformed paste
17:00:14 <npdoty> ... need faith that the process is going to be fair
17:00:14 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:00:27 <Walter> +1 on dwainberg
17:00:32 <npdoty> schunter: an important piece of homework for peter and I to reclarify the process
17:00:36 <Chapell> +1 to Dwainberg
17:00:36 <Ari> +1 wainberg
17:01:08 <npdoty> ... as a formal position for the Last Call document is that issues are closed, a WG decision, have to be as clear as possible
17:01:09 <Chris_IAB> +1 to Dwainberg-- couldn't agree more that we are all confused and can't move forward in good faith until we understand
17:01:09 <npdoty> q?
17:01:13 <npdoty> ack johnsimpson
17:01:38 <jchester2> John:  Breaking up.  Didnt hear.
17:01:41 <npdoty> johnsimpson: did note on the agenda that we had to publish the ED as a WD, my sense is that we do not have consensus to do so
17:02:00 <rigo> john, publication of WD needs a WG decision
17:02:09 <npdoty> ... is there an estimate as to how long it would take us if we go down this path? 25 outstanding issues, one per week, would be 25 weeks
17:02:15 <npdoty> ... that's particularly optimistic
17:02:31 <jchester2> Is John only breaking up for me?
17:02:40 <npdoty> ... serious doubts about this group, spending calls talking about process instead of substance, to getting to the point to publish
17:02:44 <jmayer> As best I can tell, the answer to most questions is one of: a) need to think it through later, b) take it up in private conversations, or c) repeat previous position at length. That's quite frustrating.
17:03:02 <npdoty> ... remind we need to have an affirmative decision to move forward, ask when to poll the group on that
17:03:13 <aleecia> ack aleecia
17:03:13 <npdoty> schunter: good point, I like your goal of closing 22 issues in 22 weeks
17:03:18 <schunter> q?
17:03:42 <jackhobaugh> Matthias, you didn't answer John's question.
17:03:50 <npdoty> aleecia: hi matthias, I feel like we're talking past each other more than is productive, to be concrete: johnsimpson just asked a question about needing an affirmative decision to move forward or not
17:03:52 <rvaneijk> aleecia +1, we need to address the affirmative decision of the group to continue
17:03:54 <Chapell> q+
17:03:56 <dan_auerbach> dan_auerbach has joined #dnt
17:04:04 <dan_auerbach> q?
17:04:07 <npdoty> ... are you looking today for an affirmative decision from the group to continue?
17:04:17 <JC> Does that mean LC is postponed?
17:04:18 <npdoty> schunter: not, to have a chance to consider options
17:04:21 <fielding> waffles with breakfast?
17:04:36 <amyc> amyc has joined #dnt
17:04:38 <schunter> ?
17:04:56 <jackhobaugh> Procedures can't change from week to week.
17:04:56 <rigo> ack ri
17:05:06 <susanisrael> So are we basically saying that the affirmative decision to move forward may happen, but if so will happen at a later date due to personal obligations?
17:05:16 <npdoty> aleecia: I have heard that decision to move forward hinged on the idea of making an affirmative decision to move forward at the end at Sunnyvale
17:05:21 <tlr> q+
17:05:22 <rvaneijk> the date is in the explenatory memorandum !!!
17:05:25 <Chris_IAB> Yes, that was exactly the decision made in Sunnyvale
17:05:37 <npdoty> Lmastria_DAA: heard that it was the 24th, but maybe not at Sunnyvale
17:05:43 <tlr> text from sunnyvale: "At the close of the Face-to-Face Meeting on May 6-8, 2013 in Sunnyvale, the Tracking Protection Working Group has consensus that there was sufficient progress during the meeting to merit moving ahead with the Do Not Track standard, toward the July 2013 Last Call deadline."
17:05:44 <Chris_IAB> the date was in the memo, as Rob points out
17:05:48 <jmayer> Aleecia, it was "baked into" the chairs' decision to use the June Draft.
17:05:48 <tlr> ack thomas
17:05:51 <dan_auerbach> that's my recollection from Sunnyvale, but I don't remember the exact text
17:05:53 <jchester2> Rob has shown us the text.  Mattias and Thomas--can you please address?
17:05:57 <dan_auerbach> or speech
17:06:07 <rvaneijk> aleecia: YES
17:06:16 <tlr> ack thomas
17:06:22 <Chris_IAB> tlr, you are saying we did not discuss deadlines in Sunnyvale?!
17:06:29 <npdoty> aleecia: if that was privately, then that's different; but was it a group decision at Sunnyvale to not continue after July? minuted too lightly
17:06:44 <npdoty> tlr: result was accepting the consensus action summary
17:06:49 <fielding> To clarify, I am all for a "break", preferably until the end of August, if the first thing we make a decision on at the end of that break is a WD publication and/or closure of the WG.
17:06:50 <npdoty> [pasted in by tlr]
17:06:56 <jmayer> Previous commitments by the chairs to the deadline: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Jul/0508.html
17:07:10 <npdoty> tlr: that text was the documented result from that meeting
17:07:20 <susanisrael> Did we also  not take a vote on one of the calls as to whether we would vote on July 24?
17:07:24 <johnsimpson> There have been repeated comments that we would need an affirmative decision of the group to work past that.
17:07:25 <npdoty> aleecia: very helpful, exactly the form of answer
17:07:26 <rvaneijk> minutes Juli 10: peterswire:  What I've said before is that we need an affirmative  decision by the group about whether to continue after July, and the way  to do that is to have input on this fork in the road.
17:07:40 <rigo> aleecia++
17:07:48 <npdoty> ... text doesn't have such affirmative decision language, but some people in the group believe it is
17:07:50 <rvaneijk> minutes Juni 19: 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.
17:07:50 <johnsimpson> There have been repeated statements that we need an affirmative decision
17:07:53 <jchester2> Thomas--Please see what Rob placed in IRC regarding what Peter said--which is also what I recall.
17:08:01 <dan_auerbach> q?
17:08:38 <npdoty> schunter: the formal answer is that it may not be a formal part of the minutes, but the group doesn't continue without participation (voting with your feet)
17:09:08 <npdoty> tlr: [reading from path forward email] "clear and well-defined work plan toward Last Call"
17:09:15 <Lmastria_DAA> susanisrael +1...that's what I recall
17:09:23 <npdoty> ... assessment from chairs that we have a basis for going forward
17:09:35 <rvaneijk> Thomas, that is your assessment, not a reading of the room..
17:09:40 <dan_auerbach> q+
17:09:41 <jmayer> I would like to respond to this.
17:09:46 <jmayer> Since I sent a response to the mailing list.
17:09:47 <Chapell> TLR: the chairs assessment should have some basis in reality
17:09:48 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:09:48 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:09:59 <npdoty> ... in Sunnyvale we rightly said we needed a path forward, and we've done a lot of work to get there
17:10:19 <johnsimpson> HOW LONG WILL THE PATH FORWARD TAKE?
17:10:19 <Chris_IAB> susanisrael, you should get on the q to state your point regarding the vote
17:10:32 <npdoty> aleecia: take peter's comments about making a decision in July as dicta rather than normative
17:10:50 <johnsimpson> Q?
17:11:03 <wseltzer> ack Walter
17:11:05 <tlr> ack walter
17:11:06 <rvaneijk> for the minutes, Matthas answer that question with a YES
17:11:10 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:11:10 <Zakim> Thomas was already muted, tlr
17:11:16 <rvaneijk> s/answer/answered/
17:11:18 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:11:25 <npdoty> aleecia: thanks for specific answers, whether agreed upon or not
17:11:26 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas.a
17:11:51 <npdoty> Walter: appears from the answer we just received, a third option, but not clear to me what that third option would be
17:11:57 <johnsimpson> not hearing...
17:12:16 <jackhobaugh> Isn't W3C concerned that no one in your working group understands the process or procedures used here?
17:12:18 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
17:12:23 <susanisrael> I believe that June 19 was the call on which we voted on whether to have a deadline
17:12:32 <tlr> ack thomas
17:12:34 <npdoty> ... I understand from the explanatory memo that the Sunnyvale consensus was that we would have a Last Call document or enough information to make a decision of whether to complete this process or not
17:12:42 <rvaneijk> Walter is referring to page 9 of the explenatory memorandum
17:12:43 <npdoty> ... don't believe we have enough clarity to make that decision or not
17:13:01 <rigo> I think we failed to get sufficient clarity on whether we will be able to continue...
17:13:16 <npdoty> tlr: consensus action summary was decision, interpreting comments since then
17:13:19 <jackhobaugh> We don't have clarity on anything.
17:13:35 <npdoty> ... chairs memo yesterday was that based on the work that took place, we can move forward
17:13:48 <rigo> jackhobaugh: I hope we will create that clarity after the break MTS suggests
17:13:49 <npdoty> ... detailed project planning (as asked by johnsimpson in IRC, rightly) regarding timing and prioritization
17:14:07 <aleecia> To summarize what I believe has happened: (a) in sunnyvale there was an agreement to continue working, (b) the "deadline" of end of July was aspirational, not binding, as reflected in the text of the decision in sunnyvale.
17:14:16 <susanisrael> http://www.w3.org/2013/06/19-dnt-minutes
17:14:16 <dan_auerbach_> dan_auerbach_ has joined #dnt
17:14:19 <npdoty> ... with the information we have, editors' draft, decision on 215, shrinking of decision space regarding change proposals, we can move forward
17:14:24 <dan_auerbach_> q?
17:14:27 <johnsimpson> I do not see how we can see can say we have identified a path forward
17:14:29 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:14:29 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:14:34 <npdoty> ... chairs should go come up with detailed project plan
17:14:36 <johnsimpson> q?
17:14:40 <rigo> +1 Aleecia, this would be my interpretation too
17:14:50 <npdoty> Walter: not sure we have information enough to go forward
17:15:04 <rigo> Walter: I have doubt we have enough information to move forward
17:15:07 <tlr> q?
17:15:10 <aleecia> We have just had a co-chair invite us all to quit if we like, but there is no plan to determine if we currently have consensus to continue.
17:15:14 <Walter> npdoty: I doubt that there is consensus in this working group on having enough information to go forward
17:15:16 <Chapell> The chairs are selectively interpreting so many of the data points that its difficult for those of us who are not on the inside to understand what happened, why, and how we can move forward
17:15:17 <Walter> in a credible way
17:15:20 <npdoty> schunter: have issue-214, we could acknowledge that we go back to past working draft
17:15:34 <Chapell> q-
17:15:37 <Zakim> -Mike_Zaneis
17:15:46 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
17:15:49 <npdoty> ... editors' draft does not have consensus of the working group
17:16:02 <wseltzer> q?
17:16:07 <wseltzer> ack jmayer
17:16:14 <npdoty> ... if we publish the Working Draft, we should say so (not that it represents consensus from all, but that it's text and has a list of change proposals)
17:16:26 <npdoty> jmayer: 1) affirmative decision; 2) schunter's process
17:16:36 <npdoty> ... I took the Sunnyvale decision to be one that assumed a firm July deadline
17:17:03 <npdoty> ... on the June 19th call, quoting from Peter on minutes, need an affirmative decision on whether to proceed
17:17:09 <tlr> ack thomas
17:17:09 <jchester2> +1, Jonathan's quoting from Peter re: the need for July decision point.
17:17:10 <npdoty> ... also on July 10th and explanatory memo
17:17:31 <johnsimpson> +1 Jonathan.
17:17:48 <Walter> Chapell: minus the attacks on the chairs I pretty much agree on being very confused
17:17:48 <npdoty> ... seems now there may be an implicit decision otherwise, I find that unacceptable, going against a clear process that we had an understanding of before
17:17:49 <aleecia> (for scribing, jmayer is going through point by point places where Peter said we needed an affirmative decision to continue.)
17:18:02 <npdoty> ... not sure what W3C process is regarding that
17:18:24 <npdoty> ... 2) we don't know now which commitments from the chair are firm and which aren't
17:18:37 <Chapell> This cuts at my question re: process. The WG is somehow supposed to KNOW what Peter's criteria were for his decision. Conversely, the WG is also supposed to KNOW not to take Peter's previous committment to end of july deadline
17:18:53 <Chapell> +1 Jmayer
17:19:15 <npdoty> ... haven't answered johnsimpson question about how long it will take, or my question regarding amendments allowed, or Aleecia regarding past WD
17:19:25 <aleecia> Alan: as per the formal decision process, the co-chairs owe the group a formal, written response on the last decision.
17:19:30 <npdoty> ... if we don't have that clarity, don't know how we can continue
17:19:30 <susanisrael> In posting a link to June 19 minutes, i was not expressing an opinion about the meaning of the discussion on June 19, but merely pointing to where I thought we discussed it.
17:20:06 <tlr> zaki, mute me
17:20:08 <npdoty> tlr: issue-214 is in the Tracker; have been discussing johnsimpson's question; staff isn't working 24 hours, but is working on a project plan
17:20:09 <npdoty> q?
17:20:10 <dan_auerbach_> q?
17:20:13 <johnsimpson> It is not a disgrace to realize you cannot reach agreement. If that is the case, it is the honorable thing to do.
17:20:13 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:20:13 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:20:13 <npdoty> ack dan_auerbach_
17:20:13 <wseltzer> ack dan_auerbach_
17:20:14 <aleecia> Alan: Peter acknowledged that on the last call, so it appears it is not forgotten
17:20:18 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:20:18 <npdoty> ack dan
17:20:23 <jmayer> My first point: the chairs again and again reaffirmed that a deadline extension would require an "affirmative decision." The chairs have no departed from that process.
17:20:35 <Walter> s/no/now
17:20:42 <npdoty> dan_auerbach_: appreciate all the work the chairs have done, agree you're working very hard, share concerns about no longer needing an affirmative decision to go forward
17:20:50 <npdoty> ... sentiment in the room right now is different from that of the chairs
17:21:01 <tlr> ack thomas
17:21:07 <rigo> danA: want a straw-poll
17:21:08 <npdoty> ... is there an objection to a vote, regardless of how the vote is interpreted
17:21:15 <jmayer> My second point: 1) we don't know what commitments are firm or mere "dicta", 2) we don't know how long this path forward is supposed to take, 3) we don't know what amendments are in order, 4) we don't know which base text we're using (ISSUE-214)
17:21:20 <Walter> I object to taking a break
17:21:26 <Walter> that in itself is an affirmative decission
17:21:28 <Walter> decision
17:21:28 <jmayer> This is not a clear path forward. This is the absence of a clear path forward.
17:21:42 <jmayer> I think a straw poll would be valuable here.
17:21:47 <npdoty> schunter: plan not clear enough to taking a vote/poll, want to take a break, and come back
17:21:47 <Walter> +1
17:21:50 <johnsimpson> Matthias, That is NOT what we agreed
17:21:50 <rigo> q+
17:21:52 <jchester2> Let's do a vote for the record.  There is a sense that the Co-Chairs and WC3 staff do not have the confidence of the group.
17:22:17 <npdoty> dan_auerbach_: July deadline will have passed, for WG members that do not believe it's a legitimate process after July that's a problem
17:22:17 <Walter> It is not uncommon for a group then to take an explicit decision on that
17:22:23 <jchester2> Does the Chair and Thomas refuse to hold a straw poll vote?
17:22:26 <johnsimpson> So when will the next deadline be?  July 2014?
17:22:37 <Chapell> q+
17:22:41 <npdoty> schunter: deadline in the charter, but not unusual to change LC publication deadlines
17:22:46 <rigo> ack ri
17:22:47 <jmayer> Could we just have a straw poll in IRC?
17:22:51 <yrlesru> A vote without a clear proposal makes no sense. And votes seem to be not preferred by W3C procedures?
17:22:54 <npdoty> ... don't see a way to get consensus to publish a LC, even if we work 24 hours
17:23:14 <jmayer> Straw polls are a routine part of W3C procedure.
17:23:18 <npdoty> rigo: vote is far too black and white for me
17:23:40 <jmayer> Proposed question: "Does the group agree to extend the July deadline?"
17:23:43 <npdoty> ... chairs' assessment is that they want to base their way forward on the June draft
17:23:44 <dwainberg> q+
17:23:55 <jmayer> q+
17:23:58 <jchester2> Would Tim Berners-Lee agree that the members of the group shouldn't be asked their opinion?
17:24:13 <npdoty> ... deadline in this room about 31 July precludes everything, with Aleecia agree that it was aspirational
17:24:19 <tlr> jeff, we're listening to your opinion right now.
17:24:19 <aleecia> while i find it exceedingly unwise, the co-chair is entirely empowered to not hold a straw poll vote.
17:24:33 <fielding> fwiw, the LC deadline is something the chairs negotiate with the W3C, not something we get to play with … the deadlines that Peter mentioned were more personal in nature … regardless, taking a break for a few weeks and *then* taking a vote on the way forward is effectively the same as making a decision now.
17:24:43 <jchester2> Thomas--I am glad you have your sense of humor still intact!
17:24:53 <Walter> hearing is not the same as listening
17:25:07 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:25:17 <npdoty> rigo: we will listen to you, won't debate endlessly, W3C process is that even if there is dissent you move forward
17:25:22 <jchester2> +q
17:25:24 <Walter> fielding: that is my problem exactly
17:25:29 <yrlesru> Does the group extend the LC vote from July 24 to YYYYMMDD?
17:25:49 <npdoty> rigo: the deadline, and this affirmative thing, is not to preclude us from going forward
17:25:56 <wseltzer> q?
17:25:57 <johnsimpson> Should Jonathan's question "Should we continue" be opened  as an issue?
17:26:00 <npdoty> ack Chapell
17:26:01 <aleecia> ack Chapell
17:26:42 <rvaneijk> q+
17:26:45 <npdoty> Chapell: I want to understand, it sounds like the chairs want to punt for 2 or 3 weeks, implicit a cooling off period, do we have commitment from the chairs to have a discussion about moving forward before returning to the substance?
17:26:46 <jmayer> A decision? Or just a discussion?
17:26:55 <aleecia> john: while any member can open an issue at any time, the chairs do not need to take it up
17:26:57 <npdoty> tlr: a discussion would be a fine thing
17:27:04 <npdoty> Chapell: so there would be a go/no-go vote?
17:27:19 <johnsimpson> Can we open as a formal issue: Should we continue?
17:27:42 <jchester2> -q
17:27:45 <WileyS> In summary, there is no opportunity for a go/no-go vote.  That path is not supported by the W3C Staff and Co-Chairs.
17:27:45 <npdoty> schunter: at some point we have to agree, or get a majority of stakeholders to move forward, a Working Group consisting of only two chairs doesn't make sense
17:27:57 <fielding> Do we have a commitment from the W3C staff that they won't make any more (assinine) comments to the press about our progress until the group is given a chance to determine its own progress?
17:28:03 <aleecia> Shane, that is what I hear as well
17:28:17 <jackhobaugh> jackhobaugh has joined #dnt
17:28:23 <JJ> JJ has joined #dnt
17:28:24 <npdoty> ... decision of the stakeholders, do they support this path forward? or have an alternative path forward? if we don't have a path forward would work for multiple stakeholders, then it doesn't work
17:28:36 <jmayer> Matthias has twice now suggested the way to disagree is to exit the group. That's more than a little concerning.
17:28:39 <aleecia> However, we do need a consensus agreement to publish another WD
17:28:42 <npdoty> ... don't have to agree among all members, a path forward not supported by anyone is a non-starter
17:28:48 <Walter> WileyS: would you support such a vote?
17:28:51 <tlr> fielding, "asinine"?  Excuse me?
17:29:02 <npdoty> q?
17:29:07 <johnsimpson> Do we need agreement to publish WD?
17:29:07 <npdoty> Zakim, please close the queue
17:29:08 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
17:29:10 <aleecia> As a result, we are going to effectively make the WD vote a vote on continuing or not
17:29:12 <fielding> Do you need me to quote the relevant article, Thomas?
17:29:18 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
17:29:31 <npdoty> schunter: homework for the chairs to detail a path forward
17:29:43 <npdoty> dwainberg: will the path forward include a clear process for making decisions?
17:29:43 <aleecia> If we all vote down the June draft, what then?
17:29:44 <Marc> Marc has joined #dnt
17:29:54 <npdoty> ... things have obviously not been clear up to date
17:29:59 <aleecia> Presumably we roll back to the current consensus draft as published.
17:30:05 <rigo> aleecia: we would continue with the initial draft
17:30:11 <npdoty> schunter: our intent is to have a clear path forward, and procedures for handling remaining steps
17:30:14 <aleecia> thanks Rigo
17:30:33 <tlr> q?
17:30:34 <aleecia> so even that is not a go / no go, though it will serve as a rough proxy
17:30:41 <npdoty> dwainberg: hope and expect the group would have an opportunity to approve or decide to move forward with that process
17:30:50 <WileyS> Call should be ending now, correct?
17:30:58 <johnsimpson> What if there is no real path forward?
17:30:59 <aleecia> nothing ever ends :-)
17:31:05 <npdoty> schunter: vote would be too black and white, but consider alternatives, and find a path forward that would work for stakeholders in the group
17:31:06 <Zakim> -Amy_Colando
17:31:12 <rigo> aleecia, only the AC and the Director have go/no-go authority AFAIK, but may be wrong
17:31:15 <npdoty> ... if we're certain that this is impossible, we can consider failure
17:31:20 <jmayer> q-
17:31:30 <aleecia> Rigo, *thank you*. I have been asking this question for well over a year to no avail.
17:31:38 <johnsimpson> There have been no progress in resolving substantive issues.
17:31:44 <rigo> aleecia: not me :)
17:31:46 <npdoty> ... very encouraged based on progress in the past weeks,
17:31:55 <Walter> Indeed, and the process is as clear as mud now
17:31:56 <schunter> q?
17:31:56 <aleecia> that's fine, i'm just trying to figure out what is the actual process.
17:32:01 <johnsimpson> q?
17:32:01 <npdoty> ack rvaneijk
17:32:09 <rigo> npdoty++ for scribing
17:32:20 <rigo> this was difficult
17:32:26 <npdoty> rvaneijk: want to make a closing remark, our task today was to assess whether to proceed and how; but we've turned that the other way around
17:32:30 <aleecia> i understand "director" is delegated at times. who is the AC?
17:32:34 <johnsimpson> e just kicking things down the road
17:32:42 <npdoty> ... assess whether there are enough parties in the room that do want to continue
17:32:49 <npdoty> ... deferring the discussion that we should have had today
17:32:51 <aleecia> we're not deferring it. it's not going to happen at all
17:32:55 <rigo> aleecia: Advisory Committee: The representation of all the members
17:32:58 <jmayer> No Rob, we're deferring a discussion. Not a decision. There is no decision by the group.
17:33:04 <Lmastria_DAA> +1 rvaneijk
17:33:10 <npdoty> schunter: could say it that way, decision is postponed
17:33:11 <johnsimpson> We're never going to have the discussion on whether we should continue
17:33:15 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas
17:33:15 <jchester2> Thank you Mattias.
17:33:16 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:33:18 <npdoty> ... felt a little bit like being in the hot seat, but that's fair enough
17:33:26 <Zakim> -Thomas_Schauff
17:33:36 <npdoty> schunter: last point on the agenda is publishing a snapshot Working Draft
17:33:46 <aleecia> We're basically all being dared to quit. Very interesting structure.
17:33:59 <Walter> aleecia: it is becoming more tempting by the day
17:34:03 <johnsimpson> June draft should not be a Working draft unless you include all change proposals, and have notes to open issues
17:34:11 <rvaneijk> Matthias, please mail all the decisions made during this call to the list.
17:34:12 <jmayer> Matthias, are you suggesting a straw poll on the June Draft as a Working Draft?
17:34:14 <npdoty> ... I'm proposing to take the editors' draft and publish as a Working Draft, with a notice of change proposals
17:34:24 <johnsimpson> q+
17:34:26 <aleecia> wait, now?
17:34:29 <Zakim> - +1.202.257.aaii
17:34:30 <jmayer> -1
17:34:30 <npdoty> ... proposal would be to take this editors' draft, put it out to the public
17:34:31 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:34:31 <fielding> I object to publishing the WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft; I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition, or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed.
17:34:31 <Chapell> I object
17:34:34 <johnsimpson> object object
17:34:34 <aleecia> objection: it's 10:34
17:34:35 <npdoty> Zakim, please open the queue
17:34:35 <Zakim> ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
17:34:39 <aleecia> the call is over
17:34:39 <npdoty> q+ johnsimpson
17:34:42 <johnsimpson> q+
17:34:42 <Chris_IAB> q+
17:34:47 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:34:47 <Zakim> -vinay
17:34:50 <Chapell> moreover, many WG members have left the call
17:34:55 <tlr> note that the editor's draft includes links to the issues
17:34:55 <fielding> q+
17:34:57 <aleecia> this would need to be announced in advance
17:35:10 <robsherman> Matthias, I still don't feel like I understand the significance of the Editors Draft -> Working Draft shift, since both of the documents are presently available to the public.  What is the implication of "Working Draft" status?
17:35:13 <npdoty> johnsimpson: seems that the document is not in shape to go out (as WD) as such
17:35:19 <aleecia> not sprung upon as after the call ends
17:35:29 <hober> s/as/us/
17:35:32 <rigo> robsherman: some stability
17:35:33 <npdoty> ... should have notes as references to all the issues/changes
17:35:36 <jmayer> q+
17:35:39 <tlr> q+ to make a procedural point
17:35:39 <Zakim> -JeffWilson
17:35:47 <rigo> ack johnsimpson
17:35:48 <Chapell> Matthias: whas publication announced as part of today's agenda?
17:35:49 <dan_auerbach_> it is after 10:30 and many participants have dropped off
17:35:50 <efelten> robsherman, I think the difference is that WD means the group has approved publishing it as a WD.
17:35:51 <npdoty> schunter: would it be sufficient to have a statement detailing all the changes we have to do?
17:35:57 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:36:05 <Zakim> -Joanne.a
17:36:08 <aleecia> it means we have consensus to publish the draft, more to the point
17:36:23 <npdoty> johnsimpson: the last public Working Draft document did just that [include open issues]
17:36:23 <tlr> ack thomas
17:36:23 <Zakim> Thomas, you wanted to make a procedural point
17:36:23 <Walter> which I find highly disingenuous
17:36:27 <Chapell> +1 to JohnSimpson
17:36:30 <npdoty> ... this would present to the world a consensus that does not exist
17:36:31 <jchester2> +1, John's view.
17:36:33 <npdoty> ack tlr
17:36:34 <rvaneijk> schunter, I think you should wait until the path forward is clear.
17:36:50 <aleecia> right now we do not have consensus around making the "editor's draft" into a published WD, and that's what would differ
17:36:55 <jchester2> I think most are still on IRC
17:37:00 <npdoty> tlr: some people dropped off the call after 90 minutes without coming back to publishing the Working Draft
17:37:21 <npdoty> ... suggest finishing up [not making decisions]
17:37:24 <Marc> Also, what is the deadline for formal objections on the co-chairs's decision?
17:37:25 <aleecia> +1 thank you tlr
17:37:25 <rigo> ack Chris_IAB
17:37:33 <Chapell> +1 to TLR
17:37:37 <npdoty> Chris_IAB: but about the scheduling, I'm concerned about aug 14
17:37:47 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:37:49 <npdoty> tlr: fine to get scheduling feedback now, just not group decision
17:37:55 <aleecia> q?
17:38:11 <rigo> aleecia, was on the Q
17:38:12 <npdoty> Chris_IAB: my point was, regarding that timing, a lot of people in industry on vacation through all of August
17:38:21 <aleecia> believe it - was just checking length
17:38:24 <npdoty> ... DC on break during that time
17:38:27 <aleecia> have another call after this, etc
17:38:34 <fielding> end of August, please, so resume Sep 4
17:38:40 <npdoty> ... suggest we pick back up the 1st of September, August a horrible month for having substantive discussions
17:38:40 <susanisrael> +1 to resuming in September
17:38:41 <ChrisPedigoOPA> +1 to no calls in August
17:38:41 <aleecia> +1 to sept
17:38:52 <rigo> we could try to improve the draft in the meantime
17:38:59 <npdoty> schunter: believe it's a good point, will discuss it with staff
17:39:09 <rigo> q?
17:39:11 <aleecia> easy enough to do a doodle poll to see who's around
17:39:16 <fielding> q-
17:39:16 <aleecia> hint, hint :-)
17:39:17 <npdoty> tlr: can figure out scheduling offline, appreciate raising the point
17:39:43 <npdoty> Chris_IAB: we're taking this break because of someone's personal plans/vacation, a lot of people do
17:39:55 <npdoty> schunter: proposal would be September 4 (first Wednesday)
17:39:59 <fielding> labor day is Sep 2
17:40:11 <ChrisPedigoOPA> Labor Day is Sept 2
17:40:15 <npdoty> q?
17:40:16 <aleecia> q?
17:40:16 <WileyS> Yes - Sep 4th would be the next meeting if we break for August
17:40:23 <jmayer> q-
17:40:28 <npdoty> schunter: send around either a Doodle or proposal
17:40:35 <johnsimpson> q?
17:40:44 <npdoty> ... thanks everybody for this interesting call, and your hard work over the past month, exploding mailing lists
17:40:49 <tlr> I'll send a Doodle poll in a moment
17:40:53 <jmayer> What clear process?
17:40:56 <npdoty> ... hope we come up with a good and detailed proposal and clear process
17:41:03 <Zakim> -efelten
17:41:07 <WileyS> So what is the break?  2 weeks or 4 weeks?
17:41:08 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:41:14 <aleecia> unknown, Shane
17:41:14 <npdoty> ... our first break :) we all have earned it
17:41:20 <yrlesru> quit
17:41:20 <jchester2> Can we be sent what the clear process will be, please?
17:41:21 <Zakim> -Chapell
17:41:22 <Zakim> - +1.202.331.aapp
17:41:23 <Zakim> -Dan_Auerbach
17:41:24 <Zakim> -paulohm
17:41:25 <Zakim> -schunter
17:41:25 <npdoty> ... thanks a lot everybody, call is adjourned.
17:41:26 <Zakim> -hefferjr
17:41:26 <Zakim> -Rigo
17:41:26 <Zakim> -[Adobe]
17:41:27 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
17:41:27 <Zakim> -Thomas
17:41:27 <Zakim> -AdamPhillips
17:41:27 <Zakim> -Walter
17:41:27 <Zakim> -kulick
17:41:27 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:41:28 <WileyS> Help - need clarity on length of break.
17:41:28 <Zakim> -jchester2
17:41:28 <Zakim> -Aleecia
17:41:28 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:41:29 <Zakim> -David_MacMillan
17:41:29 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:41:29 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB
17:41:29 <Zakim> -Jonathan_Mayer
17:41:29 <Zakim> -BrianH
17:41:30 <Zakim> -robsherman
17:41:30 <Zakim> -jackhobaugh
17:41:30 <Zakim> -ninjamarnau
17:41:32 <Zakim> -hober
17:41:32 <Zakim> -tara
17:41:32 <Zakim> -Bill
17:41:33 <Zakim> - +1.650.595.aakk
17:41:34 <Zakim> -wseltzer
17:41:35 <aleecia> shane, will be on mailing list
17:41:36 <Zakim> -Yianni
17:41:36 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:41:37 <Zakim> -WileyS
17:41:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, schunter, Chris_IAB, +31.20.589.aaaa, +1.202.253.aabb, +1.646.654.aacc, Mike_Zaneis, [Microsoft], +1.650.283.aadd, +1.215.286.aaee,
17:41:37 <Zakim> ... tara, Thomas, efelten, +1.917.934.aaff, jackhobaugh, +1.650.365.aagg, susanisrael, JeffWilson, Aleecia, WaltMichel, +1.646.654.aahh, +1.202.257.aaii, Joanne, David_MacMillan,
17:41:38 <Zakim> ... +31.20.589.aajj, Bill, eberkower, Kim_Smouter, BrianH, Craig_Spiezle, Yianni, rvaneijk, RichardWeaver, paulohm, Walter, +1.650.595.aakk, robsherman, moneill2, hefferjr,
17:41:39 <Zakim> ... johnsimpson, Keith_Scarborough, jchester2, dwainberg, Brooks, kulick, Amy_Colando, wseltzer, sidstamm, Fielding, vinay, WileyS, adrianba, rachel_n_thomas, +1.619.846.aall,
17:41:43 <Zakim> ... AdamPhillips, hwest, +1.469.242.aamm, yrlesru, +1.917.318.aann, ninjamarnau, Jonathan_Mayer, Peder_Magee, Chapell, +1.203.645.aaoo, ChrisPedigoOPA, Dan_Auerbach, laurengelman,
17:41:43 <Zakim> ... [Adobe], BerinSzoka, +1.202.331.aapp, Rigo, hober, +49.173.259.aaqq, Thomas_Schauff
17:41:43 <Zakim> -Kim_Smouter
17:41:43 <Zakim> -Keith_Scarborough
17:41:43 <Zakim> -yrlesru
17:41:43 <Zakim> -[Adobe.a]
17:41:43 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
17:41:47 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:41:47 <Zakim> -ChrisPedigoOPA
17:41:50 <Zakim> -susanisrael
17:41:51 <npdoty> rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:41:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:42:17 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:42:25 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
17:42:48 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:46:38 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
17:46:39 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:46:39 <Zakim> Attendees were npdoty, schunter, Chris_IAB, +31.20.589.aaaa, +1.202.253.aabb, +1.646.654.aacc, Mike_Zaneis, [Microsoft], +1.650.283.aadd, +1.215.286.aaee, tara, Thomas, efelten,
17:46:39 <Zakim> ... +1.917.934.aaff, jackhobaugh, +1.650.365.aagg, susanisrael, JeffWilson, Aleecia, WaltMichel, +1.646.654.aahh, +1.202.257.aaii, Joanne, David_MacMillan, +31.20.589.aajj, Bill,
17:46:40 <Zakim> ... eberkower, Kim_Smouter, BrianH, Craig_Spiezle, Yianni, rvaneijk, RichardWeaver, paulohm, Walter, +1.650.595.aakk, robsherman, moneill2, hefferjr, johnsimpson,
17:46:40 <Zakim> ... Keith_Scarborough, jchester2, dwainberg, Brooks, kulick, Amy_Colando, wseltzer, sidstamm, Fielding, vinay, WileyS, adrianba, rachel_n_thomas, +1.619.846.aall, AdamPhillips,
17:46:44 <Zakim> ... hwest, +1.469.242.aamm, yrlesru, +1.917.318.aann, ninjamarnau, Jonathan_Mayer, Peder_Magee, Chapell, +1.203.645.aaoo, ChrisPedigoOPA, Dan_Auerbach, laurengelman, [Adobe],
17:46:44 <Zakim> ... BerinSzoka, +1.202.331.aapp, Rigo, hober, +49.173.259.aaqq, Thomas_Schauff
17:59:49 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
18:02:05 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
18:13:07 <Kim_Smouter> Kim_Smouter has left #dnt
18:39:37 <KJ> KJ has joined #dnt
18:39:45 <KJ> KJ has left #dnt
19:46:49 <yrlesru> yrlesru has joined #DNT
19:48:18 <yrlesru2> yrlesru2 has joined #DNT
20:07:58 <Zakim> Zakim has left #dnt
20:55:59 <yrlesru> yrlesru has joined #DNT
23:36:02 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt