IRC log of dnt on 2013-09-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:27:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:27:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:28:04 [tlr]
rrsagent, make record public
15:28:07 [tlr]
zakim, this will b track
15:28:07 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will b track', tlr
15:28:10 [tlr]
zakim, this will be track
15:28:10 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 32 minutes
15:38:24 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:40:45 [jeff]
jeff has joined #dnt
15:41:58 [rvaneijk]
Hi Jeff, I will try to attend the call. Current meeting is ending in 20 minutes and then I am in transit. Most likely I will be listening in, instead of actively participating.
15:42:40 [jeff]
Rob, thanks for trying to attend this call. This is an important call, but if you have connection problems we can catch up afterwards.
15:43:18 [rvaneijk]
Is the poll done during the meeting? As far as I undersood we have a bit of time after the call correct?
15:44:12 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:45:18 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
15:47:06 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:47:07 [Zakim]
15:47:07 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
15:47:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were
15:47:36 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:47:38 [Zakim]
15:48:44 [schunter]
Zakim, ??P0 is schunter
15:48:44 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
15:49:20 [schunter]
call rigo-mobile
15:49:29 [schunter]
Zakim, call rigo-mobile
15:49:29 [Zakim]
ok, schunter; the call is being made
15:49:31 [Zakim]
15:50:02 [Zakim]
+ +31.65.275.aaaa
15:50:05 [schunter]
Zakim, mute rigo
15:50:05 [Zakim]
Rigo should now be muted
15:50:08 [rvaneijk]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:50:08 [Zakim]
+rvaneijk; got it
15:50:19 [rvaneijk]
Zakim, mute me
15:50:19 [Zakim]
rvaneijk should now be muted
15:50:51 [schunter]
Zakim, unmure rigo
15:50:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unmure rigo', schunter
15:50:58 [schunter]
Zakim, unmure rigo
15:50:58 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unmure rigo', schunter
15:51:03 [schunter]
unmure rigo
15:51:07 [npdoty]
ack rigo
15:51:09 [schunter]
Zakim, unmute rigo
15:51:09 [Zakim]
Rigo was not muted, schunter
15:51:51 [tlr]
zakim, call thomas-781
15:51:51 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
15:51:53 [Zakim]
15:52:01 [rvaneijk]
Nick (npdoty) I may drop out of irc. For the caller identifcation, I am dialing from +31.65.275......
15:52:06 [Zakim]
15:52:10 [tlr]
zakim, I am thomas
15:52:10 [Zakim]
ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
15:52:11 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
15:52:13 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
15:52:35 [WaltMichel]
WaltMichel has joined #DNT
15:52:46 [Zakim]
15:53:11 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
15:53:23 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:53:43 [Jack]
Jack has joined #dnt
15:54:01 [cmcmeley]
cmcmeley has joined #dnt
15:54:04 [Adamp]
Adamp has joined #dnt
15:55:43 [Zakim]
+ +44.142.864.aabb
15:55:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.347.aacc
15:56:11 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
15:56:12 [Jack-NAI]
Zakim, aacc is Jack-NAI
15:56:12 [Zakim]
+Jack-NAI; got it
15:56:14 [tlr]
ack thomas
15:56:46 [Zakim]
15:56:58 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
15:57:00 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
15:57:09 [tlr]
zakim, drop aabb
15:57:09 [Zakim]
+44.142.864.aabb is being disconnected
15:57:10 [Zakim]
- +44.142.864.aabb
15:57:13 [tlr]
zakim, mute me
15:57:13 [Zakim]
Thomas should now be muted
15:57:24 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
15:57:28 [rvaneijk]
tlr, I am dropping out of irc now and continue the call from +31.65.275......
15:57:36 [Zakim]
15:57:38 [npdoty]
Adamp, are you calling in from +44?
15:57:44 [Zakim]
15:57:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.917.934.aadd
15:57:50 [Zakim]
15:57:55 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla.a has me
15:57:55 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
15:57:57 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
15:58:01 [Keith]
Keith has joined #dnt
15:58:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.916.212.aaee
15:58:06 [Zakim]
15:58:10 [tlr]
zakim, aadd is susanisrael
15:58:10 [Zakim]
+susanisrael; got it
15:58:12 [afowler]
afowler has joined #dnt
15:58:13 [Zakim]
15:58:22 [haakonfb]
haakonfb has joined #dnt
15:58:31 [Joanne]
Zakim, aaee is Joanne
15:58:31 [Zakim]
+Joanne; got it
15:58:35 [susanisrael]
917,934.aadd is susanisrael
15:58:42 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
15:58:44 [Zakim]
15:58:46 [mecallahan]
mecallahan has joined #dnt
15:58:46 [Richard_comScore]
Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
15:59:00 [Zakim]
15:59:01 [Zakim]
15:59:13 [npdoty]
Zakim, Keith_Scarborough has danjaffe
15:59:13 [Zakim]
+danjaffe; got it
15:59:17 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.973.aaff
15:59:19 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:59:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.215.480.aagg
15:59:24 [Walter]
zakim, ipcaller is me
15:59:24 [Zakim]
+Walter; got it
15:59:25 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
15:59:28 [rachel_n_thomas]
rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
15:59:31 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
15:59:35 [jchester2]
jchester2 has joined #dnt
15:59:37 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.257.aahh
15:59:39 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaff is cmcmeley
15:59:39 [Zakim]
+cmcmeley; got it
15:59:46 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
15:59:47 [Zakim]
15:59:48 [susanisrael]
202.973.aaff is christin mcmeley
15:59:55 [jchester2]
zakim, mute me
15:59:56 [Zakim]
jchester2 should now be muted
15:59:56 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aaii
15:59:59 [paulohm]
paulohm has joined #dnt
16:00:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.595.aajj
16:00:09 [Zakim]
16:00:09 [tlr]
zakim, call rigo-mobile
16:00:10 [Zakim]
ok, tlr; the call is being made
16:00:11 [Zakim]
16:00:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.478.aakk
16:00:18 [tlr]
zakim, drop rigo.a
16:00:18 [Zakim]
Rigo.a is being disconnected
16:00:19 [Zakim]
16:00:21 [Zakim]
16:00:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.836.aall
16:00:22 [Zakim]
- +47.23.69.aaii
16:00:26 [Zakim]
16:00:29 [AnnaLong]
AnnaLong has joined #dnt
16:00:29 [rachel_n_thomas]
zakim, aakk is rachel_n_thomas
16:00:29 [Zakim]
+rachel_n_thomas; got it
16:00:30 [ninjamarnau]
ninjamarnau has joined #dnt
16:00:30 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
16:00:31 [BrianH]
BrianH has joined #dnt
16:00:31 [WaltMichel]
1.215.480.aagg is WaltMichel
16:00:39 [tlr]
zakim, aagg is WaltMichel
16:00:39 [Zakim]
+WaltMichel; got it
16:00:40 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
16:00:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.303.492.aamm
16:00:44 [jchester2]
Happy New Year everyone. And I hope everyone had a good summer.
16:00:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.239.aann
16:00:50 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see schunter, Rigo, rvaneijk (muted), Thomas (muted), Jeff, npdoty, Jack-NAI, RichardWeaver, Keith_Scarborough, [Mozilla], susanisrael, [Mozilla.a], Joanne,
16:00:51 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:00:53 [Zakim]
... Keith_Scarborough.a, hefferjr, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, Walter, cmcmeley, WaltMichel, +1.202.257.aahh, jchester2 (muted), WileyS, +1.650.595.aajj, rachel_n_thomas, AnnaLong,
16:00:53 [Zakim]
... +1.408.836.aall, vinay, +1.303.492.aamm, +1.908.239.aann
16:00:53 [Zakim]
[Mozilla.a] has sidstamm
16:00:53 [Zakim]
Keith_Scarborough has danjaffe
16:00:56 [paulohm]
zakim, aamm is me
16:00:58 [Zakim]
+paulohm; got it
16:00:58 [Zakim]
16:01:02 [Zakim]
+ +47.23.69.aaoo
16:01:07 [Zakim]
+ +43.198.8aapp
16:01:07 [Zakim]
16:01:11 [schunter]
rigo sitting next to me
16:01:21 [Zakim]
16:01:24 [Zakim]
16:01:28 [Lmastria_DAA]
Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt
16:01:31 [kulick]
408.836.aall is kulick
16:01:33 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.345.aaqq
16:01:34 [Zakim]
16:01:34 [Zakim]
16:01:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.222.aarr
16:01:43 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:01:44 [npdoty]
Zakim, aall is kulick
16:01:44 [Zakim]
+kulick; got it
16:01:45 [Zakim]
+ +44.186.558.aass
16:01:57 [npdoty]
robsherman, are you calling in from a dc mobile phone?
16:02:10 [CraigSpiezle]
CraigSpiezle has joined #dnt
16:02:13 [mecallahan]
202.257.aahh mecallahan
16:02:18 [npdoty]
Zakim, drop aajj
16:02:18 [Zakim]
+1.650.595.aajj is being disconnected
16:02:19 [Zakim]
- +1.650.595.aajj
16:02:20 [Zakim]
16:02:23 [BrianH]
aaqq BrianH
16:02:26 [moneill2]
zakim, aass is me
16:02:27 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:02:27 [Zakim]
+moneill2; got it
16:02:27 [npdoty]
Zakim, aahh is mecallahan
16:02:27 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:02:27 [Zakim]
+mecallahan; got it
16:02:33 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaqq is BrianH
16:02:33 [Zakim]
+BrianH; got it
16:02:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.643.aatt
16:02:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.587.aauu
16:02:55 [Aleecia]
Aleecia has joined #dnt
16:03:02 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:03:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.595.aavv
16:03:04 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:03:30 [Zakim]
16:03:31 [Zakim]
16:03:36 [Walter]
schunter: sound is breaking up sometimes
16:03:38 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:03:41 [Chris_IAB]
Just joined from a blocked number
16:03:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.344.aaww
16:03:51 [tlr]
zakim, ??P66 is probably Chris_IAB
16:03:51 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB?; got it
16:03:51 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??P66 is Chris_IAB
16:03:52 [Zakim]
I already had ??P66 as Chris_IAB?, npdoty
16:03:56 [Zakim]
16:04:01 [wseltzer]
scribenick: wseltzer
16:04:04 [wseltzer]
mts: welcome back
16:04:13 [npdoty]
Zakim, aatt may be [Google]
16:04:13 [Zakim]
+[Google]?; got it
16:04:21 [Zakim]
16:04:23 [wseltzer]
... first item of business is to look for a new chair, as Peter has left the group
16:04:30 [wseltzer]
... second, plan for going forward
16:04:38 [wseltzer]
... third, initate poll to gather feedback
16:04:41 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see schunter, Rigo, rvaneijk (muted), Thomas (muted), Jeff, npdoty, Jack-NAI, RichardWeaver, Keith_Scarborough, [Mozilla], susanisrael, [Mozilla.a], Joanne,
16:04:44 [Zakim]
... Keith_Scarborough.a, hefferjr, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, Walter, cmcmeley, WaltMichel, mecallahan, jchester2 (muted), WileyS, rachel_n_thomas, AnnaLong, kulick, vinay,
16:04:44 [Zakim]
... paulohm, +1.908.239.aann, Wendy, +47.23.69.aaoo, +43.198.8aapp, Brooks, dwainberg, [CDT], BrianH, Aleecia, Craig_Spiezle, +1.202.222.aarr, [Apple], [Google]?, +1.202.587.aauu,
16:04:44 [Zakim]
... +1.650.595.aavv, Chris_IAB?, +1.202.344.aaww, [Microsoft], moneill2
16:04:45 [Zakim]
[Mozilla.a] has sidstamm
16:04:48 [Zakim]
Keith_Scarborough has danjaffe
16:04:48 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:04:49 [wseltzer]
... then, key dates
16:04:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.666.aaxx
16:04:57 [wseltzer]
... thanks to W3C and Jeff Jaffe in particular
16:05:07 [haakonfb]
Zakim, aaoo is haakonfb
16:05:07 [Zakim]
+haakonfb; got it
16:05:09 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
16:05:19 [wseltzer]
... editors, other members of W3C team who helped create the plan.
16:05:29 [wseltzer]
... we hope it's now good enough to proceed.
16:05:30 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:05:41 [wseltzer]
... scribe volunteers?
16:05:53 [Chapell]
Nick, I'm 646
16:05:54 [wseltzer]
npdoty: Please identify yourselves, callers
16:05:56 [aleecia_]
aleecia_ has joined #dnt
16:05:56 [Lmastria_DAA]
908 is Lmastria_DAA
16:06:02 [marc]
marc has joined #dnt
16:06:08 [Zakim]
16:06:13 [npdoty]
Zakim, aann is Lmastria_DAA
16:06:15 [Zakim]
+Lmastria_DAA; got it
16:06:18 [Chapell]
i'm happy to scribe
16:06:18 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike is 202-344
16:06:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.510.501.aayy
16:06:27 [npdoty]
Zakim, aarr is Berin
16:06:27 [Zakim]
+Berin; got it
16:06:31 [Ari]
Ari is 650
16:06:40 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaww is Mike_Zaneis
16:06:40 [Zakim]
+Mike_Zaneis; got it
16:06:45 [marc]
202 210-#### is Marc
16:06:51 [Zakim]
- +43.198.8aapp
16:07:04 [wseltzer]
scribenick: aleecia_
16:07:05 [ifette]
ifette has joined #dnt
16:07:08 [Zakim]
16:07:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.210.aazz
16:07:19 [wseltzer]
scribenick: wseltzer
16:07:20 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.214.bbaa
16:07:24 [ifette]
Zakim, bbaa is ifette
16:07:24 [Zakim]
+ifette; got it
16:07:32 [npdoty]
Zakim, aazz is marc
16:07:32 [Zakim]
+marc; got it
16:07:35 [wseltzer]
mts: First, finding me a co-chair
16:07:39 [susanisrael]
*matthias is breaking up. Is it possible to use a wireline or better phone or speaker?
16:07:41 [aleecia_]
(sorry for call drop)
16:07:52 [sidstamm]
Zakim, mozilla has afowler
16:07:52 [Zakim]
+afowler; got it
16:07:53 [Zakim]
16:07:55 [aleecia_]
zakim, mute me
16:07:55 [Zakim]
sorry, aleecia_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:07:56 [wseltzer]
Topic: Chair update
16:08:04 [npdoty]
Zakim, aaxx is Chapell
16:08:04 [Zakim]
+Chapell; got it
16:08:09 [tlr]
zakim, Aleecia is nick aleecia_
16:08:09 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'Aleecia is nick aleecia_', tlr
16:08:16 [wseltzer]
Jeff: Thomas announced he was moving on; I started a series of phone calls
16:08:21 [aleecia_]
… new chair search drew 30ish people who reached out
16:08:22 [Zakim]
+ +43.198.8bbbb
16:08:22 [wseltzer]
... quite a number of people reached out to me.
16:08:32 [aleecia_]
… group committed to subject, thanks for perspective
16:08:39 [ninjamarnau]
zakim, bbbb is ninjamarnau
16:08:39 [Zakim]
+ninjamarnau; got it
16:08:44 [wseltzer]
scribenick: aleecia_
16:08:47 [npdoty]
Zakim, aavv is Ari
16:08:47 [Zakim]
+Ari; got it
16:08:53 [aleecia_]
… if you missed talking to Jeff send to
16:08:58 [aleecia_]
… he's happy to talk
16:08:59 [schunter]
16:09:06 [tlr]
16:09:09 [aleecia_]
zakim, please mute me
16:09:09 [Zakim]
sorry, aleecia_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:09:11 [aleecia_]
16:09:16 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:09:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see schunter, Rigo, rvaneijk (muted), Thomas (muted), Jeff, npdoty, Jack-NAI, RichardWeaver, Keith_Scarborough, [Mozilla], susanisrael, [Mozilla.a], Joanne,
16:09:19 [tlr]
zakim, mute Aleecia
16:09:19 [Zakim]
... Keith_Scarborough.a, hefferjr, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, Walter, cmcmeley, WaltMichel, mecallahan, jchester2 (muted), WileyS, rachel_n_thomas, AnnaLong, kulick, vinay,
16:09:19 [Zakim]
... paulohm, Lmastria_DAA, Wendy, haakonfb, Brooks, dwainberg, [CDT], BrianH, Craig_Spiezle, Berin, [Apple], [Google]?, +1.202.587.aauu, Ari, Chris_IAB?, Mike_Zaneis, [Microsoft],
16:09:19 [Zakim]
... moneill2, Chapell, johnsimpson, +1.510.501.aayy, marc, ifette, Aleecia, ninjamarnau
16:09:20 [Zakim]
[Mozilla.a] has sidstamm
16:09:24 [Zakim]
Keith_Scarborough has danjaffe
16:09:24 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has afowler
16:09:24 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:09:24 [Zakim]
Aleecia should now be muted
16:09:24 [aleecia_]
jeff: thanks to aleecia, Peter who did a fantastic job,
16:09:30 [npdoty]
Zakim, aayy is LeeTien
16:09:30 [Zakim]
+LeeTien; got it
16:09:38 [Zakim]
+ +49.172.147.bbcc
16:09:45 [aleecia_]
… Matthias, been with since the beginning and is stepping up as only chair for what we hope is a short time
16:09:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.587.bbdd
16:09:47 [Zakim]
16:09:52 [schunter]
zakim, bbcc is schunter
16:09:52 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:09:58 [Zakim]
16:10:06 [aleecia_]
… w3c gets work done through contributions, appreciative of your time
16:10:36 [magee2023263538]
magee2023263538 has joined #dnt
16:10:38 [jpolonetsky]
jpolonetsky has joined #DNT
16:10:38 [aleecia_]
Jeff: search for co-chair, don't have someone waiting in the wings, have had suggestions
16:10:49 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:10:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.308.bbee
16:10:53 [robsherman]
zakim, bbee is robsherman
16:10:53 [Zakim]
+robsherman; got it
16:10:59 [aleecia_]
… 10-12 suggestions from people within WG, Thomas & others prepared list of candidates
16:11:18 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:11:21 [aleecia_]
… find the person who knows enough to hit the ground running, and need a consensus builder
16:11:22 [Zakim]
16:11:35 [aleecia_]
… leading people on short list, have been talking with them
16:11:41 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:11:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Rigo, rvaneijk (muted), Thomas (muted), Jeff, npdoty, Jack-NAI, RichardWeaver, Keith_Scarborough, [Mozilla], susanisrael, [Mozilla.a], Joanne,
16:11:45 [BerinSzoka]
BerinSzoka has joined #DNT
16:11:46 [Zakim]
... Keith_Scarborough.a, hefferjr, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, Walter, cmcmeley, WaltMichel, mecallahan, jchester2 (muted), WileyS, rachel_n_thomas, AnnaLong, kulick, vinay,
16:11:46 [Zakim]
... paulohm, Lmastria_DAA, Wendy, haakonfb, Brooks, dwainberg, [CDT], BrianH, Craig_Spiezle, Berin, [Apple], [Google]?, +1.202.587.aauu, Ari, Chris_IAB?, Mike_Zaneis, [Microsoft],
16:11:49 [Zakim]
... moneill2, Chapell, johnsimpson, LeeTien, marc, ifette, Aleecia (muted), ninjamarnau, schunter, +1.202.587.bbdd, Peder_Magee, robsherman, [FTC]
16:11:49 [Zakim]
[Mozilla.a] has sidstamm
16:11:49 [Zakim]
Keith_Scarborough has danjaffe
16:11:49 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has afowler
16:11:49 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:11:49 [Zakim]
16:12:13 [aleecia_]
… can do about a month with Matthias as only chair but need a second co-chair. Looking for additional support resources from W3C team.
16:12:14 [BerinSzoka]
Maybe we should draw straws? It'll be just like Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"!
16:12:25 [wseltzer]
16:12:29 [aleecia_]
schunter, hope to complete team soon
16:12:51 [tlr]
s/schunter, hope/schunter: hope/
16:12:55 [jpolonetsky]
202 587 is jpolonetsky
16:13:14 [aleecia_]
… walking through options for light feedback now, can read plans in detail and give more feedback over the next week. Ask questions and give feedback now, but not only chance
16:13:14 [wseltzer]
Topic: Proposed Plan
16:13:33 [aleecia_]
… 9 Sept deadline: end feedback on plan. Will post final plan with revisions
16:13:35 [npdoty]
Zakim, aauu may be jpolonetsky
16:13:35 [Zakim]
+jpolonetsky?; got it
16:13:40 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbdd may be jpolonetsky
16:13:40 [Zakim]
+jpolonetsky?; got it
16:13:49 [aleecia_]
… Oct deadline with complete list of issues
16:14:06 [aleecia_]
Oct 9, close ? and go to director to see how best to proceed
16:14:15 [aleecia_]
… Plan: two phases.
16:14:29 [aleecia_]
… Sept, phase I, prep. Get WD in order and have all issues.
16:14:38 [aleecia_]
… publish WD to inform public what's going on
16:14:48 [aleecia_]
… start collecting proposals around all issues
16:14:52 [npdoty]
16:14:52 [aleecia_]
… need text for all issues.
16:15:06 [Alex]
Alex has joined #dnt
16:15:07 [aleecia_]
… Oct, with second chair, second phase: close each issue one by one.
16:15:09 [npdoty]
s/? and/poll and/
16:15:28 [aleecia_]
… discuss and find consensus, or if it's not clear, will do call for objections and chairs will find the least strong objections
16:15:41 [aleecia_]
… collect issues in phase I, resolve issues in phase II
16:15:47 [aleecia_]
… initial feedback?
16:15:48 [schunter]
16:15:56 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:16:02 [afowler]
16:16:03 [johnsimpson]
16:16:08 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 11 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:16:11 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:16:12 [schunter]
ack jo
16:16:15 [WileyS]
I'll be back with comments before the 9th.
16:16:16 [dsinger]
like the plan overall
16:16:19 [Zakim]
+ +44.142.864.bbff
16:16:22 [aleecia_]
johnsimpson: curious, deadlines could not always be met in the past
16:16:36 [jeffwilson]
jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:16:40 [aleecia_]
… how long do you see this taking?
16:16:46 [Adamp]
aAdamp is bbff
16:16:52 [WileyS]
Aspects of the plan continue to feel arbitrary and not focused on achieving consensus that will lead to broad implementation
16:16:54 [npdoty]
Zakim, bbff is Adamp
16:16:54 [Zakim]
+Adamp; got it
16:16:55 [aleecia_]
matthias: estimate close about one issue per week
16:17:17 [dwainberg]
16:17:19 [aleecia_]
… look at issue, get texts, discuss, get agreement if possible, can do 3-4 at a time
16:17:30 [Zakim]
16:17:44 [aleecia_]
… basically, cannot answer question since 2 Oct deadline for list of issues. 30 now, but if there are 50, would be a year
16:17:54 [aleecia_]
… early oct should have estimate of how long
16:18:02 [npdoty]
there are currently 24 issues on the June Compliance product
16:18:13 [aleecia_]
johnsimpson: current 30 issues?
16:18:24 [dsinger]
I think that a number of issues will close by consensus, so I think the one-per-week is a pessimistic outlook
16:18:25 [aleecia_]
matthias: still open, need to focus on making issue list complete.
16:18:46 [aleecia_]
… if we see agreement, great, we don't need to wait. But let's make sure all issues are clear.
16:18:52 [schunter]
16:18:58 [aleecia_]
… expect there will be new issues on top of the current 30 week estimate
16:18:58 [schunter]
ack d
16:18:59 [BerinSzoka]
So are we contemplating another Face-to-Face?
16:19:01 [Zakim]
16:19:08 [WileyS]
As one issues closes, there could be legitimate situations where opening a new issue will be appropriate
16:19:11 [justin]
Agree with dsinger, we won't need a week on every issue.
16:19:14 [aleecia_]
dwainberg: how do decisions work?
16:19:14 [dsinger]
There are good reasons to reach consensus on a middle ground, rather than trusting to the decision process where you may win or lose…
16:19:18 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:19:20 [aleecia_]
… how are they communicated back?
16:19:32 [WileyS]
Yes - we should be discussing another face-to-face. We make the most progress in those situations.
16:19:35 [schunter]
16:19:36 [aleecia_]
schunter: next agenda item goes through that, will wait a few minutes for that
16:19:43 [aleecia_]
16:19:48 [Chris_IAB]
isn't David's question about process?
16:19:50 [aleecia_]
f2f -> great idea
16:19:58 [schunter]
16:20:00 [Chris_IAB]
16:20:13 [npdoty]
ack Chris_IAB
16:20:13 [schunter]
ack C
16:20:18 [johnsimpson]
16:20:22 [aleecia_]
chris: welcome back everyone, any plan for face to face meeting?
16:20:24 [jchester2]
Shane: Can we meet in Melissa's nursery?
16:20:50 [aleecia_]
schunter: currently not planned, but start of Oct should talk about when (or if) to do one
16:20:58 [aleecia_]
… hope we can do without
16:21:06 [aleecia_]
… mainly a written process
16:21:12 [aleecia_]
… discuss in early Oct
16:21:13 [schunter]
16:21:30 [aleecia_]
Chris: staff & co-chairs think not needed but discuss later?
16:21:30 [BerinSzoka]
All I heard was "F2F in Ibiza"
16:21:34 [aleecia_]
schunter: yes
16:21:46 [aleecia_]
… Ibiza is a nice proposal
16:21:46 [BerinSzoka]
16:21:51 [dsinger]
Do we have a volunteer to host there :-)?
16:21:53 [marc]
16:21:58 [aleecia_]
… other feedback?
16:22:03 [schunter]
16:22:05 [wseltzer]
Topic: Poll
16:22:09 [Chris_IAB]
Berin, how about a f2f in Siberia... a few people can probably get a lot of work done ;)
16:22:22 [Zakim]
16:22:22 [npdoty]
16:22:39 [aleecia]
… Jeff started talking with people but did not get to all 108.
16:22:52 [aleecia]
… getting better picture of how we have agreement to move forward
16:23:02 [aleecia]
… formally, not a decision from us to move forward or not
16:23:14 [aleecia]
… have list of choices, see what subset of groups would agree to which proposals
16:23:36 [aleecia]
… have said if you don't like how things work, you're free to leave, but one person leaving should not hold up work for others
16:24:09 [aleecia]
… if someone says "no matter what, not joining anything any more," then there are no options they support
16:24:20 [aleecia]
… publish plan, gather feedback.
16:24:26 [susanisrael]
*agree with dsinger
16:24:35 [aleecia]
… option 1, execute plan. option 2, careful with what's in 1.0 or 2.0
16:24:51 [aleecia]
… explicitly push options into 2.0 version
16:24:59 [ifette]
16:24:59 [aleecia]
… option 3, TPE first, compliance later
16:25:09 [aleecia]
… option 4, TPE only, no compliance
16:25:19 [aleecia]
… option 5, no matter what would like to leave the group
16:25:31 [aleecia]
… get input on which options are acceptable to 108 participants
16:25:42 [aleecia]
… with this picture, go to Jeff Jaffe and the Director
16:25:44 [johnsimpson]
Can you give more explanation of difference of option 1 and option 2?
16:26:11 [npdoty]
q+ johnsimpson
16:26:18 [aleecia]
… let's say 50 say 1, 20 say 2, etc. based on number of people and which subgroups, Director will look at the best way to proceed
16:26:30 [aleecia]
… what's supported by a large enough group of stakeholders?
16:26:33 [aleecia]
16:26:34 [wseltzer]
johnsimpson, explicit work on a v2.0 in option 2.
16:26:38 [dsinger]
to JohnSimpson: I think option 1 tries to complete and walk away, whereas option 2 has the safety valve of a second version we can defer stuff to
16:26:48 [wseltzer]
16:26:54 [ifette]
i think people ont eh queue have questions
16:27:00 [wseltzer]
ack ifette
16:27:05 [Chapell]
Thanks @dsinger, helpful to understand
16:27:06 [Chris_IAB]
Ian is back!
16:27:07 [schunter]
ack i
16:27:15 [Chris_IAB]
it's like 1999 in here ;)
16:27:16 [aleecia]
ifette: curious, option to move forward like 1 but with goal of simplify spec
16:27:25 [aleecia]
… open issues are same as we've had since start of the group
16:27:45 [aleecia]
… is there a way forward with TPE so complex. if we drop things from TPE, does it get easier?
16:28:17 [aleecia]
schunter: if option 1 or 2, agree on compliance then resolve dependencies with TPE.
16:28:29 [aleecia]
… we might be able to drop flags, for instane, from TPE
16:28:41 [ifette]
16:28:42 [aleecia]
… first decide what to communicate then resolve TPE
16:28:44 [wseltzer]
16:28:54 [schunter]
ack j
16:28:56 [npdoty]
ifette, to clarify, your suggestion is not covered by one of the TPE-first and TPE-only options, you're suggesting that we can prioritize compliance but by reducing features in TPE?
16:29:09 [aleecia]
johnsimpson: clearer understanding on diffs between 1 and 2?
16:29:16 [ifette]
npdoty, i think that's one way forward that would potentially work
16:29:27 [aleecia]
… option 1 is "we're done" and option 2 is we know we're not done and we'll have yet another version later?
16:29:34 [aleecia]
… as a commitment?
16:29:37 [ifette]
npdoty, whether you approach it from compliance or tpe, simplifying the entire DNT apparattus
16:29:43 [aleecia]
schunter: same discussion internally
16:29:47 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
16:29:47 [Zakim]
Aleecia should no longer be muted
16:29:48 [dsinger]
I am guessing that we're all in favor of simplicity, and only keeping in TPE what we actually agree is needed. Proposals to simplify would be …. interesting, IMHO
16:29:49 [Zakim]
16:29:55 [ifette]
apologies as I have to drop off, but i appreciate the claification
16:30:04 [jeff]
q+ to address some of John's question
16:30:22 [aleecia]
schunter: in first, get very good spec out and debug only. in second, we push issues out to option 2. Steam release valve -- anything too complicated we defer
16:30:35 [sidstamm]
dsinger, I'm with you on this.
16:30:37 [aleecia]
johnsimpson: keep kicking this down the road?
16:31:03 [npdoty]
dsinger, sidstamm, ifette one option would be marking features at risk at a call for implementations
16:31:06 [aleecia]
schunter: have the essential pieces and implement, then in certain areas after we try it in practice, do a 2nd version with implementations out there
16:31:25 [dsinger]
q+ on version 2
16:31:31 [aleecia]
… in 1.5 years, come back, have 5 or 20 issues pushed, and with experience gained we close them
16:31:43 [sidstamm]
npdoty, you mean flag the bits of the TPE that none of the browsers are likely to ship?
16:31:49 [susanisrael]
Is the idea that in option 2 there would be a pre-defined set of additional features to be added/resolved?
16:31:58 [aleecia]
… basically, if you don't believe in 2.0, you can say that in the poll, or pick several options you can live with
16:32:02 [WileyS]
DSinger, as long as we keep signal communication, signal validation, and UGEs, I'm fine with TPE simplification but that seems to cover everything that's already there. :-)
16:32:07 [aleecia]
… say which options you support
16:32:23 [vinay_]
vinay_ has joined #dnt
16:32:24 [aleecia]
… in (2) there may be new economic or tech changes that make new things possible over time
16:32:35 [aleecia]
… but think the difference is not large between (1) and (2) options
16:32:43 [dsinger]
to WileyS: yes, I am curious to know what people think is discardable. Hence the 'interesting' in my reply
16:32:47 [schunter]
16:32:49 [dwainberg]
16:32:51 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
16:32:57 [wseltzer]
ack aleecia
16:32:57 [schunter]
ack al
16:33:36 [npdoty]
aleecia: how this will proceed; understand the feedback goes to jeff and the director. is this treated like a vote (everyone from an organization as one), or from individual representatives? binding or not?
16:33:48 [aleecia]
schunter: not a vote
16:33:54 [npdoty]
scribenick: aleecia
16:33:56 [dsinger]
16:34:02 [aleecia]
… stakeholder perspective, which stakeholders are involved for which options
16:34:11 [aleecia]
… is there enough support for one (or more)?
16:34:12 [marc]
what is sufficient stakeholder buy in?
16:34:18 [aleecia]
… not counting people or companies
16:34:24 [johnsimpson]
What if you get about 20 for each option?
16:34:31 [aleecia]
… does it make sense to go down this path?
16:34:52 [aleecia]
… other thing, to John's question: depends upon the arguments, not the count
16:35:01 [aleecia]
… will understand who's involved for which option
16:35:10 [aleecia]
… clearly not a vote
16:35:27 [aleecia]
… director has to be convinced option is the best for interoperability and web
16:35:35 [marc]
It isn't counting and it clearly is not a vote - W3C staff and W3C Director will make the decision
16:35:41 [ninjamarnau]
question is, do we still have faith and momentum - and if, for which way forward.
16:35:54 [marc]
Very good point Aleecia
16:35:57 [dsinger]
ok, we're trying to find the most viable way forward given people's perspectives and preferences…
16:35:58 [npdoty]
aleecia: can you tell me more about interoperability and the web; if there are concrete criteria, helpful to understand up front
16:36:00 [aleecia]
aleecia: what are the criteria?
16:36:12 [npdoty]
ack jeff
16:36:12 [Zakim]
jeff, you wanted to address some of John's question
16:36:30 [aleecia]
zakim, mute me please
16:36:30 [Zakim]
Aleecia should now be muted
16:36:41 [aleecia]
jeff: don't think there is an explicit answer
16:36:43 [susanisrael]
Are you hoping to perhaps hear from us what we believe the criteria for evaluating options should be, in the course of the poll?
16:37:01 [aleecia]
… wide variations on perspectives on best way forward
16:37:07 [aleecia]
(thanks for filling in nick)
16:37:18 [aleecia]
jeff: would be informative to get full group to weigh in
16:37:32 [aleecia]
… had been discussion about a go / no go
16:37:45 [aleecia]
… not a vote of companies, poll of participants, even if multiple from same company
16:37:52 [aleecia]
… view points of all are quite valuable
16:38:00 [Chris_IAB]
what I don't understand, is how the "June draft" is seen as the best doc for moving forward? Wasn't it bilaterally denounced after it was released?
16:38:24 [aleecia]
… if large number of people are in favor of option 1, strong consensus forward for a great interoperable solution to the web
16:38:43 [aleecia]
… but contrast, if (5) then director might conclude we cannot get to interoperability
16:39:04 [schunter]
16:39:14 [johnsimpson]
16:39:26 [aleecia]
… John asked if 20 / 20 / 20 split, we want at this stage to hear from the WG, give people a chance to express their perspectives, would look at result to have a discussion with the Director
16:39:36 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:39:38 [aleecia]
… moving on to why Jeff was in the queue -
16:39:45 [sidstamm]
Chris_IAB, I don't recall it being "bilaterally denounced", though it wasn't exactly greeted with open arms.
16:39:48 [aleecia]
… adding detail to option (1) v. (2)
16:40:05 [rvaneijk]
Zakim, unmute me
16:40:05 [Zakim]
rvaneijk should no longer be muted
16:40:09 [rvaneijk]
16:40:13 [aleecia]
… trying to understand perspectives and capture them in the poll. Had 8 options at one point, culled it back
16:40:34 [Chris_IAB]
sidstamm, fair enough, but I didn't really see much, if any support for it... from advocates, or industry.
16:40:38 [aleecia]
… Option 1 is the current plan, what the WG was asked to do: get to LC and get a final recommendation
16:40:49 [Chapell]
16:41:15 [Chris_IAB]
sidstamm, and yet, it has been put forward again as "the best option to move forward" now... I'm confused by that.
16:41:23 [aleecia]
… feedback from some was "we understand why the June draft says what it says, but there are parts we really don't like, and we're worried the web will be locked in for 20 years due to the way things happen to work in this moment in 2013."
16:41:31 [sidstamm]
Chris_IAB, my impression is that participants were trying to see if there were ways to make it work, but didn't get that far before more new stuff was introduced.
16:41:37 [JackHobaugh]
16:41:39 [aleecia]
… to address concern over lock in, could come back and iterate
16:41:44 [schunter]
ack d
16:41:56 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:42:00 [aleecia]
dwainberg: process -
16:42:07 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dwainberg (71%)
16:42:42 [aleecia]
… at end of July, expressed concern that if we didn't clear up many process concerns we'd have a hard time moving forward. Afraid this poll doesn't address those, but duplicates prior confusing process.
16:42:55 [Zakim]
16:43:07 [aleecia]
… Remain confused on criteria, what feedback would be valuable, what the decision process is for the poll. Feeling uncomfortable.
16:43:39 [marc]
I support both Aleecia's and David's question about CRITERIA for the poll and for moving forward.
16:44:15 [aleecia]
schunter: proposed plan, tried to document how we propose to go forward. For decisions, try to see where there's consensus, and if not, do call for objections issue by issue. Want to understand what everyone thinks. Try to understand what people want, then make a decision.
16:44:17 [Zakim]
16:44:23 [aleecia]
… list of issues, then solve one by one.
16:44:33 [aleecia]
… Contrast -- DON'T try to do a package deal.
16:44:39 [aleecia]
… Now trying to do it one by one.
16:44:51 [aleecia]
… That's the process.
16:45:18 [aleecia]
dwainberg: going back to point in July, without being clear on process (criteria?) moving forward, hard to have faith in the process.
16:45:42 [aleecia]
… how can I support any of these other than 5 unless there's faith there will be fairness moving forward.
16:46:17 [aleecia]
… Have been fuzzy on what's open or closed, how we re-open, if we have to keep re-raising issues to keep them open -- if I don't have faith those will be addressed, how can I respond to this poll?
16:46:42 [WileyS]
I could see many participants basing some of their decision on who the new co-chair is. Shouldn't that decision come before the poll?
16:46:56 [marc]
To summarize David's concerns - the process still appears to be arbitrary and that concerns many people
16:46:59 [aleecia]
schunter: We have a plan & process. Can have concern that what's on paper won't happen in reality, that's a valid concern, but we are working to go by a cookbook and editors are on board
16:47:01 [BerinSzoka]
+1 to everything David just said
16:47:03 [dwainberg]
+1 Shane
16:47:14 [aleecia]
… for closing issues, these are the steps, we follow them for each issue
16:47:14 [WileyS]
16:47:34 [aleecia]
… if you read the plan and don't think it's clear, please give feedback on specific parts to improve it
16:47:38 [aleecia]
16:47:40 [npdoty]
the proposed plan ( doesn't make any changes to Calls for Objections or determining consensus, though it does speak to when issues are opened and how we would handle change proposals
16:47:56 [aleecia]
… plan by W3C staff, editors, and Matthias, but can be changed and collecting feedback now
16:48:22 [dsinger]
To my eye, the process is much clearer now, but let's make sure we all feel that way. Raise issue - make proposals - make counter-proposals - try to get consensus - if that fails, go to the call for objections (roughly).
16:48:22 [npdoty]
... but if there are open questions regarding Calls for Objections, I think that's good feedback for us to gather now
16:48:24 [WileyS]
As "consensus" is determined by the co-chairs, the selection of the new co-chair will be immensly impactful to poll responses.
16:48:35 [aleecia]
… sorry it's been bumpy in the past and will execute to plan as much as possible moving forward
16:48:54 [aleecia]
dwainberg: ok, will provide feedback, and hope for new versions of the plan
16:48:57 [npdoty]
16:49:04 [schunter]
16:49:08 [WileyS]
16:49:30 [aleecia]
schunter: Shane made a point in IRC, new co-chair will matter - difficult to assess process without knowing co-chair since chair's may determine consensus
16:49:52 [WileyS]
Yeah - that's not subjective at all :-)
16:49:56 [dsinger]
to WileyS: I think the chairs try to find the exact proposal that has the weakest technical objections, i.e. is the one 'closest' to consensus. Note that anyone can also formally call in the director (formal objection).
16:50:05 [aleecia]
schunter: job of the chairs is not to decide, goal is unbiased chairs
16:50:22 [aleecia]
… finding the right chair is hard
16:50:22 [jeff]
q+ to discuss Shane's point / David's point about poll timing
16:50:22 [WileyS]
to dsinger - "try" is the operative term
16:50:27 [sidstamm]
I think a good chair exhibits what dsinger said, but my impression is that WileyS is concerned that a new co-chair won't
16:50:45 [aleecia]
… need someone to take a step back, put personal opinions on the shelf, assess comments on their substance
16:50:52 [schunter]
16:50:58 [schunter]
ack ch
16:51:07 [dsinger]
Yes, we are CLEARLY better off not putting things to chair decision, but thrashing out a consensus. Once it goes to chair decision (a) they only choose, they don't synthesize or compromise and (b) you might not like the choice.
16:51:15 [aleecia]
alan: looks like 1-4 are all based on June draft as starting point, yes?
16:51:21 [npdoty]
4 would not be.
16:51:45 [npdoty]
and 3 would focus on the TPE instead of Compliance for the time being
16:51:45 [aleecia]
schunter: last call for objections was DAA v. June draft, and continue with June draft.
16:51:59 [aleecia]
… issue 214 is pull over good parts of old draft(s)
16:52:11 [aleecia]
… but starting point is June draft
16:52:27 [aleecia]
… alternative drafts may still be incorporated
16:52:38 [aleecia]
alan: not a limit on issues raise, but that's where we begin
16:52:56 [rvaneijk]
No limits? Well, URL scoring is NOT open for negtotiation !!
16:53:01 [aleecia]
… if a month from now, we're told "no, this was decided because we selected the June draft," you may get push back
16:53:07 [dsinger]
I think that the June draft is an easier target to 'shoot at' -- make proposals against.
16:53:14 [aleecia]
schunter: multiple points here. Anyone can raise any issue in principle .
16:53:22 [johnsimpson]
Are you saying that everything that was in the "DAA" proposal can be raised again?
16:53:37 [aleecia]
… To avoid exploding number of issues, explain why it's needed and provide text
16:54:05 [aleecia]
… More constraints, if issue was open in past and closed, resubmit and we auto-close it (scribe confused)
16:54:15 [npdoty]
from mts on Tuesday: If an already closed Issue is re-raised without substantial new rationale and change proposal, it will remain closed.
16:54:26 [johnsimpson]
16:54:28 [aleecia]
… In the past, arguments on pieces of the DAA draft was not at consensus for path with least objections.
16:54:48 [WileyS]
John - yes, but only if we provide updated text (per feedback, non-normative text, reasoning as to why we feel this is the best route, adding examples, etc). Simply resubmitting the original industry proposal is not allowed. Fair?
16:54:52 [aleecia]
… we would need reason for DAA draft to have new arguments or we'd look at old discussion and consider it still closed
16:55:01 [aleecia]
… (need new information, basically)
16:55:06 [dsinger]
to johnSimpson: some of my concerns about the DAA draft were that (a) it was a bundle and (b) to a large extent, we didn't get much explanation of WHY these things needed changing, why this text is better. So for me, there may parts of the DAA draft which we could agree to if we understood what that text improved/fixed etc.
16:55:16 [aleecia]
… stick to essentials and keep number of issues open as low as possible
16:55:16 [WileyS]
s/per feedback,/per feedback:
16:55:28 [aleecia]
alan: issues with June draft as starting point
16:55:42 [npdoty]
the Editors' Draft is not consensus, that's why we still have open issues and change proposals to improve it
16:55:44 [aleecia]
… given June draft critiqued by a wide spectrum of participants
16:55:47 [justin]
Didn't the W3C already formally decide to work off of the June draft?
16:56:04 [aleecia]
… my objection would be very high if June draft were static, somewhat mitigated as just a starting point
16:56:11 [tlr]
also note that we have about 30 issues open against that draft already.
16:56:36 [aleecia]
schunter: if there's a better alternative, say so with existing open issues or offer improved text
16:56:51 [Zakim]
16:57:00 [aleecia]
… if there's text in June draft you can raise a new issue if there isn't one open
16:57:22 [aleecia]
… it's a nice structure, initial answers to many pieces, but it's not at consensus. We have an answer, but it may not be the preferred answer.
16:57:24 [Zakim]
16:57:44 [aleecia]
… it's not enough to say "don't like it," need to submit better text to raise issues. That's what's new: MUST OFFER TEXT.
16:57:45 [Zakim]
16:58:02 [aleecia]
… goal of the group is to minimize text proposals for each issue
16:58:06 [npdoty]
16:58:06 [schunter]
16:58:12 [Zakim]
16:58:14 [schunter]
ack Jac
16:58:37 [aleecia]
jack: poll could provide a different path for the WG to take, but at the same time, WG is starting to execute option (1)
16:58:43 [aleecia]
… why not do the poll first?
16:59:04 [Chris_IAB]
Mike_Zaneis, see private chat in irc
16:59:10 [aleecia]
… now have Oct 2 date of issue freeze, but could imagine new issues coming from poll process, which doesn't end until Oct 9
16:59:20 [aleecia]
schunter: had this discussion internally too
16:59:32 [aleecia]
… poll is not an objective vote, basic input
16:59:40 [aleecia]
… but for most people, won't make much difference
16:59:45 [Zakim]
17:00:02 [aleecia]
… looking for completeness of issues and if we have 500 issues, maybe want option 5
17:00:02 [WileyS]
If we go with option 4, then we'd all be wasting alot of time leading up to Oct 9
17:00:20 [aleecia]
… use the month to see if we can close issues as we go and collect all the issues
17:00:28 [aleecia]
… once we have done this, we can start executing
17:00:28 [npdoty]
I think the reasoning is that documenting issues is not wasted or harmful even if from the poll we conclude that we should take a substantially different approach
17:00:30 [Zakim]
17:00:32 [Zakim]
17:00:40 [johnsimpson]
To David Singer: Thanks for your explanation
17:00:41 [aleecia]
… based on discussion with director will know best way to move forward
17:00:46 [aleecia]
zakim, please unmute me
17:00:46 [Zakim]
Aleecia should no longer be muted
17:00:59 [WileyS]
Nick, I don't believe that's sound reasoning in several of the options
17:00:59 [aleecia]
schunter: while we get prepared, understand what stakeholders think
17:01:11 [aleecia]
jack: why plan I before the outcome of the poll?
17:01:26 [aleecia]
schunter: ok, thanks
17:01:28 [npdoty]
17:01:29 [wseltzer]
17:01:31 [dsinger]
17:01:34 [wseltzer]
ack aleecia
17:01:34 [justin]
From the June draft decision: As previously noted, this decision also substantially affects ISSUE 5 (tracking), 16 (definition of collection, etc.),188(unique identifiers), and 191 (de-identification). (1/2)
17:01:53 [justin]
Having considered the points above, we will not accept change proposals that are merely restatements of these elements from the DAA proposal. (2/2)
17:01:59 [npdoty]
aleecia: insight for internal decision process, appreciate Jeff's comments about reducing options
17:02:17 [npdoty]
... why was the prior consensus working draft no longer on the table?
17:02:20 [aleecia]
zakim, please mute me
17:02:20 [Zakim]
Aleecia should now be muted
17:02:33 [aleecia]
aleecia: why was the published WD dropped when it was consensus?
17:02:43 [aleecia]
schunter: outcome of the DAA v. June draft decision
17:02:51 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
17:02:52 [Zakim]
Aleecia should no longer be muted
17:03:04 [aleecia]
schunter: can reintroduce specific pieces of text
17:03:17 [aleecia]
… didn't black list the old draft, easier to start with short version
17:03:23 [afowler]
afowler has left #dnt
17:03:27 [aleecia]
… formal decision was last call for objections
17:03:30 [schunter1]
schunter1 has joined #dnt
17:03:34 [johnsimpson]
17:03:43 [npdoty]
aleecia: followup, but the last wd wasn't part of the last call for objections
17:03:49 [schunter1]
17:04:08 [aleecia]
aleecia: but published WD was never an option
17:04:27 [aleecia]
schunter: still part of issue open, can reintroduce texts
17:04:32 [Chapell]
How was it that we came to consensus that the last published draft was not supposed to be considered when that same last published draft was never part of the recent chair decision
17:05:08 [aleecia]
schunter: can reintro the whole WD
17:05:13 [aleecia]
aleecia: did so, was ignored
17:05:23 [aleecia]
schunter: introduce specific parts
17:05:43 [aleecia]
… important that we don't - the whole thing should be reintroduced won't get consensus in the group
17:05:48 [npdoty]
schunter: I think what would be most constructive would be to propose specific parts
17:05:49 [Chapell]
Schunter: re-introducing the entire proposal will not likely be accepted
17:06:12 [Chapell]
Aleecia: why not add the last consensus draft as option #6?
17:06:24 [npdoty]
aleecia: if it's true that reintroducing the whole WD won't get consensus, we should just add it as an option #6 and if it doesn't get consensus, then fine
17:06:27 [tlr]
to clarify the process issue: There was previously consensus to *publish* the old document as a working draft. That *explicitly* is *not* consensus on the content of that old draft.
17:06:34 [ninjamarnau]
i think aleecia was proposed an option 6 to the poll
17:06:39 [Zakim]
17:06:39 [tlr]
So let's not conflate the issue by talking about it as "the previous consensus draft", which is simply inaccurate.
17:06:42 [npdoty]
schunter: you're proposing a separate Call for Objections on issue 214?
17:06:48 [dsinger]
I think we DID ask the group whether we should continue with the old draft, or take the streamlined June draft as the basis, and the preference of the group was that June was a better basis. Not that we'd rejected all the old text, but that we wanted a clearer place to work from.
17:07:13 [schunter1]
17:07:18 [Chapell]
Aleecia: option #6 or using object process is fine --- but let's actually decide to move forward with the june draft (or other drafts)
17:07:20 [schunter1]
ack j
17:07:20 [Zakim]
jeff, you wanted to discuss Shane's point / David's point about poll timing
17:07:22 [aleecia]
zakim, please mute me
17:07:22 [npdoty]
aleecia: had been suggesting an additional option for the poll, but it could be a separate call for objections, either way is great to have formal documentation
17:07:23 [Zakim]
17:07:23 [Zakim]
Aleecia should now be muted
17:07:26 [Chris_IAB]
17:08:00 [aleecia]
jeff: timing of poll and knowing who chairs are, good points raised. Matthias' response was correct that the chair is to recognize consensus not create it
17:08:08 [WileyS]
"Supposed to" - operative terms again
17:08:28 [Zakim]
17:08:30 [dsinger]
If we had rejected BOTH choices in the formal poll (not June, not DAA) we would be still using the old draft. It WAS on the table, by default.
17:08:34 [aleecia]
… poll is open for 4 weeks, not sure when we will find new chairs. Hopeful we will in next 4 weeks since can't get to phase II until we do
17:08:38 [fielding]
In general, W3C staff have often (over 15+ years) made the mistake that they can speed the process of a working group by making decisions for the WG in the form of "simplifying". In all such cases, the WG derails … making decisions for the WG means that there is no reason to have a WG, since you aren't letting us make the decisions that matter. Hence, in the future, stop trying to wag the dog -- let the group make its own decisions and act as a facilitator,
17:08:38 [fielding]
not a judge.
17:08:53 [aleecia]
… fill out the poll near the end and may have more clarity
17:09:06 [aleecia]
… could have that information in next few weeks
17:09:18 [schunter1]
17:09:43 [aleecia]
tlr, that is my point. We at least captured where there was not consensus. Rather than being asked -- AGAIN -- to re-raise issues -- AGAIN.
17:09:44 [Zakim]
17:09:50 [Chapell]
just putting it out there that it would be extremely helpful to know the new chair before providing feedback
17:09:52 [aleecia]
schunter: thanks for feedback
17:09:55 [Brooks]
having acknowledged that the chair plays a roll in how we'll fill out the poll, shouldn't we have the end date be sometime after a new chair is determined?
17:10:12 [aleecia]
… anything else on the poll, or moving on to next agenda item
17:10:14 [schunter1]
17:10:16 [Chapell]
17:10:25 [npdoty]
ack Chapell
17:10:26 [schunter1]
ack C
17:10:34 [aleecia]
alan: trying to make sure I understand Jeff's comments
17:10:51 [aleecia]
… was suggestion to wait 3-4 weeks to provide feedback so better chance of finding out who co-chair is?
17:10:56 [aleecia]
… don't want to miss deadline
17:11:08 [aleecia]
Jeff: trying not to suggest per se, but noting it's open for 4 weeks
17:11:25 [aleecia]
… if chair may influence decisions, there is the option of waiting
17:11:27 [aleecia]
Alan: thanks
17:11:32 [johnsimpson]
17:11:46 [fielding]
or to change your entry before the deadline ends.
17:11:52 [aleecia]
Schunter: lucky co-chairs were of high quality, confidence in W3C
17:12:09 [aleecia]
… assume fairly unbiased co-chair as before. No one's perfect but so far good job in finding co-chairs.
17:12:35 [Chris_IAB]
why not extend the poll deadline then?
17:12:38 [aleecia]
… Option to wait but could have longer since it takes a while to get company to approve, may not be able to announce in advance
17:12:55 [aleecia]
… Don't assume the co-chair will be strongly biased one way or another
17:12:57 [aleecia]
17:13:00 [aleecia]
zakim, unmute me
17:13:00 [Zakim]
Aleecia should no longer be muted
17:13:01 [npdoty]
yes, poll responses can be updated, and poll will certainly have comment fields if you need to explain your responses
17:13:03 [bryan]
I think we have to asume that W3C will choose a good co-chair; I think the poll process is a good way to move us forward and hope it can be concluded quickly.\
17:13:07 [schunter1]
17:13:12 [aleecia]
aleecia: multiple chairs?
17:13:14 [schunter1]
ack a
17:13:21 [Chris_IAB]
can't we just extend the poll deadline, contingent on the announcement of a new co-chair?
17:13:31 [Chris_IAB]
horse, THEN kart
17:13:33 [aleecia]
matthias: consideration, yes
17:13:37 [schunter1]
17:13:43 [wseltzer]
Topic: Important Dates
17:13:46 [aleecia]
zakim, please mute me
17:13:46 [Zakim]
Aleecia should now be muted
17:13:48 [Walter]
dsinger: I think you'd make an excellent chair
17:13:53 [aleecia]
17:13:54 [aleecia]
17:14:05 [schunter1]
17:14:14 [aleecia]
schunter: next week, open poll
17:14:21 [aleecia]
… 10 sept poll opens
17:14:27 [aleecia]
… would like feedback on plan
17:14:31 [aleecia]
… updated plan
17:14:38 [aleecia]
… first week of Oct, issue freeze
17:14:44 [Chapell]
17:14:46 [aleecia]
… then close poll
17:14:50 [johnsimpson]
17:14:54 [aleecia]
… then eval results with director
17:14:56 [Zakim]
17:14:57 [fielding]
17:15:03 [Chapell]
How do we freeze issues prior to the vote on the proposed plan?
17:15:04 [aleecia]
… ideally have an announced co-chair
17:15:06 [npdoty]
September 09: Deadline for feedback on the proposed plan
17:15:06 [npdoty]
September 10: Poll opens
17:15:07 [npdoty]
October 09: The poll closes; chairs and team assess responses.
17:15:08 [npdoty]
October 02: Issue Freeze: Issues raised after October 02 will be deferred to be addressed after Last Call.
17:15:16 [aleecia]
(thank you Nick)
17:15:25 [schunter1]
17:15:27 [dsinger]
q+ to note comething
17:15:36 [johnsimpson]
where do we send feed back on plan? to email list?
17:15:39 [dsinger]
17:15:47 [schunter1]
ack C
17:15:53 [aleecia]
Alan: confirming, issue freeze prior to poll close?
17:16:02 [Zakim]
17:16:04 [wseltzer]
yes. we're interleaving several pieces of work here
17:16:08 [npdoty]
johnsimpson, yes, feedback is welcome on the list, or you can contact the chairs offlist if you prefer
17:16:09 [aleecia]
… that seems misaligned
17:16:12 [fielding]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:16:23 [aleecia]
(we've talked through this on the call today already, fwiw)
17:16:23 [Zakim]
fielding, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Berin (11%)
17:16:35 [fielding]
zakim, mute Berin
17:16:35 [Zakim]
Berin should now be muted
17:16:37 [Zakim]
17:16:47 [aleecia]
schunter: should have list of issues complete, then closing of issues after the call has closed
17:17:00 [aleecia]
… take stock of initial proposals now, do phase II closing after
17:17:09 [dsinger]
maybe 'freeze' is a little strong. I think there is a date when our normal reaction to an issue will be 'too late', but if we all agree we need to resolve it, we'll clearly take a late issue. it just gets harder.
17:17:34 [aleecia]
… you're right, if you decide path 5 and you stop work, issues you care about may close (did I capture that?)
17:17:40 [Chapell]
@dsinger - thanks
17:17:53 [aleecia]
dsinger, it would help to outline what happens that gets harder
17:18:10 [aleecia]
schunter: it's intermixed, but can be done in parallel
17:18:13 [robsherman]
17:18:16 [aleecia]
… get the work aligned
17:18:19 [npdoty]
mts: if you decide on path 5 in the poll and then sit back and don't raise issues, new issues you raise in October may be postponed
17:18:20 [schunter1]
ack f
17:18:20 [hefferjr]
Aleecia, I think I heard that "your issues may be pushed out", not "your issues may be closed", but I am not sure
17:18:51 [aleecia]
roy: clarify: can raise issues at any time. Some will be dealt with editorially. Editors don't have to wait for next LC or after LC to change draft
17:19:13 [aleecia]
… issues addressed after LC would be new issues that apply to June draft that haven't been discussed prior to that without agreement
17:19:22 [aleecia]
schunter: thanks
17:19:23 [npdoty]
ack dsinger
17:19:23 [Zakim]
dsinger, you wanted to note comething
17:19:25 [schunter1]
ack d
17:19:48 [aleecia]
dsinger: Draft of page we could link to for "what does DNT do" that industry side could link to
17:19:56 [aleecia]
(and it's kind of awesome)
17:20:02 [aleecia]
schunter: thanks
17:20:03 [Chris_IAB]
dsigner, posted link via the Apple UI?
17:20:04 [susanisrael]
dsinger, thank you
17:20:04 [schunter1]
ack r
17:20:21 [npdoty]
dsinger is referring to:
17:20:44 [aleecia]
rob: thanks for hard work. We go through poll, if you vote to move forward as W3C has outlined, and there's an issue in the tracker, will it get addressed or do we need to re-raise?
17:20:55 [npdoty]
don't need to re-raise issues that are currently on the issues list
17:20:56 [aleecia]
schunter: on Oct 2, make sure there is an open issue address it.
17:21:00 [tlr]
17:21:06 [aleecia]
… if there is one, nothing needed.
17:21:09 [npdoty]
we have been working on the Compliance June product:
17:21:17 [fielding]
note that this user draft contains a definition of DNT that is just plain wrong -- completely misleading users.
17:21:17 [aleecia]
… if there's an issue without text you like, should add new text
17:21:30 [aleecia]
… but this is a should not a must at this phase
17:21:43 [aleecia]
… the must is that in Oct 2, make sure issue is OPEN in issue tracker
17:21:55 [npdoty]
17:22:01 [aleecia]
rob: all remain open if open now and don't need to redo that?
17:22:08 [Chris_IAB]
why not just open ALL issues again, and do a complete re-set?
17:22:16 [aleecia]
schunter: yes. If raised, not open, it needs to be open by deadline
17:22:22 [schunter1]
17:22:25 [tlr]
ack thomas
17:22:28 [Chris_IAB]
considering all the change, wouldn't that be a better path forward at this point?
17:22:48 [npdoty]
we haven't been distinguishing between raised and open on the Compliance June product, though we can do that to note which issue we're working on
17:22:49 [aleecia]
tlr: when talking about all issues open, referring to against the product "compliance june"
17:22:56 [aleecia]
schunter: yes
17:23:09 [aleecia]
… Nick and I should compile a list and send it out
17:23:13 [Zakim]
17:23:17 [tlr]
+1, good idea
17:23:25 [npdoty]
this is the current list we're referring to:
17:23:28 [aleecia]
… can double-check to see if anything's overlooked
17:23:29 [schunter1]
17:23:39 [johnsimpson]
17:23:45 [Zakim]
17:23:49 [aleecia]
(thanks for that link, Nick)
17:24:03 [aleecia]
schunter: welcome back, happy reading, sorry it hasn't always been clear
17:24:17 [aleecia]
… first step is publishing the plan, make the call, and then follow through
17:24:25 [aleecia]
… should lead to a finite termination date
17:24:32 [aleecia]
… crank away and get to done
17:24:51 [aleecia]
… fine print: will ask for contributions
17:25:00 [aleecia]
… don't be surprised if someone calls you
17:25:02 [schunter1]
17:25:16 [aleecia]
… adjourned
17:25:25 [Zakim]
17:25:28 [Zakim]
17:25:30 [Zakim]
17:25:31 [aleecia]
… looking forward to working in this lively group
17:25:32 [Zakim]
17:25:32 [jchester2]
thank you Matthias
17:25:33 [Zakim]
17:25:33 [Zakim]
17:25:33 [Zakim]
17:25:34 [Zakim]
17:25:34 [Zakim]
17:25:34 [Zakim]
17:25:34 [Zakim]
17:25:35 [Zakim]
17:25:35 [Zakim]
17:25:35 [Zakim]
17:25:35 [Zakim]
17:25:35 [Zakim]
17:25:35 [dsinger]
great job, thanks
17:25:36 [Zakim]
17:25:36 [Zakim]
17:25:37 [Zakim]
17:25:37 [Zakim]
17:25:38 [Zakim]
17:25:38 [Zakim]
17:25:39 [Zakim]
17:25:39 [Zakim]
17:25:39 [Zakim]
17:25:41 [Zakim]
17:25:41 [Zakim]
17:25:41 [Zakim]
17:25:41 [Zakim]
17:25:41 [Zakim]
17:25:42 [Zakim]
17:25:42 [Zakim]
17:25:42 [Zakim]
17:25:43 [Zakim]
17:25:43 [Zakim]
17:25:43 [Zakim]
17:25:44 [Zakim]
17:25:45 [Zakim]
17:25:48 [Zakim]
17:25:51 [Zakim]
17:25:53 [Zakim]
17:25:55 [haakonfb]
haakonfb has left #dnt
17:25:58 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has left #dnt
17:25:58 [Zakim]
17:26:08 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:26:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been schunter, Rigo, +31.65.275.aaaa, rvaneijk, Thomas, Jeff, npdoty, +44.142.864.aabb, +1.202.347.aacc, Jack-NAI, RichardWeaver,
17:26:11 [Zakim]
... +1.917.934.aadd, sidstamm, +1.916.212.aaee, susanisrael, hefferjr, Joanne, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, danjaffe, +1.202.973.aaff, +1.215.480.aagg, Walter, +1.202.257.aahh,
17:26:11 [Zakim]
... cmcmeley, jchester2, +47.23.69.aaii, +1.650.595.aajj, WileyS, Rigo.a, +1.202.478.aakk, AnnaLong, +1.408.836.aall, vinay, rachel_n_thomas, WaltMichel, +1.303.492.aamm,
17:26:15 [Zakim]
... +1.908.239.aann, paulohm, Wendy, +47.23.69.aaoo, +43.198.8aapp, Brooks, dwainberg, [CDT], +1.202.345.aaqq, Aleecia, Craig_Spiezle, +1.202.222.aarr, kulick, +44.186.558.aass,
17:26:15 [Zakim]
... moneill2, dsinger, mecallahan, BrianH, +1.202.643.aatt, +1.202.587.aauu, +1.650.595.aavv, +1.202.344.aaww, Chris_IAB?, [Microsoft], [Google]?, +1.646.666.aaxx, haakonfb,
17:26:20 [Zakim]
... johnsimpson, Lmastria_DAA, +1.510.501.aayy, Berin, Mike_Zaneis, +1.202.210.aazz, +1.650.214.bbaa, ifette, marc, afowler, Chapell, +43.198.8bbbb, ninjamarnau, Ari, LeeTien,
17:26:20 [Zakim]
... +49.172.147.bbcc, +1.202.587.bbdd, Peder_Magee, +1.650.308.bbee, robsherman, [FTC], Fielding, jpolonetsky?, +44.142.864.bbff, Adamp, Chris_Pedigo, Keith_Scarborough,
17:26:20 [Zakim]
... Amy_Colando
17:26:32 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:26:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:26:42 [Zakim]
17:26:51 [Zakim]
17:27:07 [npdoty]
Zakim, bye
17:27:07 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were schunter, Rigo, +31.65.275.aaaa, rvaneijk, Thomas, Jeff, npdoty, +44.142.864.aabb, +1.202.347.aacc, Jack-NAI, RichardWeaver,
17:27:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dnt
17:27:10 [Zakim]
... +1.917.934.aadd, sidstamm, +1.916.212.aaee, susanisrael, hefferjr, Joanne, Bryan_Sullivan, JeffWilson, danjaffe, +1.202.973.aaff, +1.215.480.aagg, Walter, +1.202.257.aahh,
17:27:10 [Zakim]
... cmcmeley, jchester2, +47.23.69.aaii, +1.650.595.aajj, WileyS, Rigo.a, +1.202.478.aakk, AnnaLong, +1.408.836.aall, vinay, rachel_n_thomas, WaltMichel, +1.303.492.aamm,
17:27:11 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
17:27:11 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items