See also: IRC log
<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.
<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.
<rvaneijk> Is the poll done during the meeting? As far as I undersood we have a bit of time after the call correct?
<schunter> unmure rigo
<susanisrael> 917,934.aadd is susanisrael
<susanisrael> 202.973.aaff is christin mcmeley
<WaltMichel> 1.215.480.aagg is WaltMichel
<jchester2> Happy New Year everyone. And I hope everyone had a good summer.
<schunter> rigo sitting next to me
<mecallahan> 202.257.aahh mecallahan
<Walter> schunter: sound is breaking up sometimes
<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
mts: welcome back
... first item of business is to look for a new chair, as Peter has left the group
... second, plan for going forward
... third, initate poll to gather feedback
... then, key dates
... thanks to W3C and Jeff Jaffe in particular
... editors, other members of W3C team who helped create the plan.
... we hope it's now good enough to proceed.
... scribe volunteers?
<Chapell> Nick, I'm 646
npdoty: Please identify yourselves, callers
<Lmastria_DAA> 908 is Lmastria_DAA
<Chapell> i'm happy to scribe
<Mike_Zaneis> Mike is 202-344
<Ari> Ari is 650
<marc> 202 210-#### is Marc
<scribe> scribenick: aleecia_
<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
mts: First, finding me a co-chair
<susanisrael> *matthias is breaking up. Is it possible to use a wireline or better phone or speaker?
<aleecia_> (sorry for call drop)
Jeff: Thomas announced he was moving on; I started a series of phone calls
<aleecia_> ... new chair search drew 30ish people who reached out
Jeff: quite a number of people reached out to me.
<aleecia_> ... group committed to subject, thanks for perspective
<scribe> scribenick: aleecia_
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: if you missed talking to Jeff send to email@example.com
... he's happy to talk
jeff: thanks to aleecia, Peter who did a fantastic job,
... Matthias, been with since the beginning and is stepping up as only chair for what we hope is a short time
... w3c gets work done through contributions, appreciative of your time
... search for co-chair, don't have someone waiting in the wings, have had suggestions
... 10-12 suggestions from people within WG, Thomas & others prepared list of candidates
... find the person who knows enough to hit the ground running, and need a consensus builder
... leading people on short list, have been talking with them
... can do about a month with Matthias as only chair but need a second co-chair. Looking for additional support resources from W3C team.
<BerinSzoka> Maybe we should draw straws? It'll be just like Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"!
schunter: hope to complete team soon
<jpolonetsky> 202 587 is jpolonetsky
schunter: 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
schunter: 9 Sept deadline: end feedback on plan. Will post final plan with revisions
... Oct deadline with complete list of issues
Oct 9, close poll and go to director to see how best to proceed
scribe: Plan: two phases.
... Sept, phase I, prep. Get WD in order and have all issues.
... publish WD to inform public what's going on
... start collecting proposals around all issues
scribe: need text for all issues.
... Oct, with second chair, second phase: close each issue one by one.
... discuss and find consensus, or if it's not clear, will do call for objections and chairs will find the least strong objections
... collect issues in phase I, resolve issues in phase II
... initial feedback?
<WileyS> I'll be back with comments before the 9th.
<dsinger> like the plan overall
johnsimpson: curious, deadlines could not always be met in the past
... how long do you see this taking?
<Adamp> aAdamp is bbff
<WileyS> Aspects of the plan continue to feel arbitrary and not focused on achieving consensus that will lead to broad implementation
matthias: estimate close about one issue per week
... look at issue, get texts, discuss, get agreement if possible, can do 3-4 at a time
... basically, cannot answer question since 2 Oct deadline for list of issues. 30 now, but if there are 50, would be a year
... early oct should have estimate of how long
<npdoty> there are currently 24 issues on the June Compliance product
johnsimpson: current 30 issues?
<dsinger> I think that a number of issues will close by consensus, so I think the one-per-week is a pessimistic outlook
matthias: still open, need to focus on making issue list complete.
... if we see agreement, great, we don't need to wait. But let's make sure all issues are clear.
... expect there will be new issues on top of the current 30 week estimate
<BerinSzoka> So are we contemplating another Face-to-Face?
<WileyS> As one issues closes, there could be legitimate situations where opening a new issue will be appropriate
<justin> Agree with dsinger, we won't need a week on every issue.
dwainberg: how do decisions work?
<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...
dwainberg: how are they communicated back?
<WileyS> Yes - we should be discussing another face-to-face. We make the most progress in those situations.
schunter: next agenda item goes through that, will wait a few minutes for that
<Chris_IAB> isn't David's question about process?
f2f -> great idea
chris: welcome back everyone, any plan for face to face meeting?
<jchester2> Shane: Can we meet in Melissa's nursery?
schunter: currently not planned, but start of Oct should talk about when (or if) to do one
... hope we can do without
... mainly a written process
... discuss in early Oct
Chris: staff & co-chairs think not needed but discuss later?
<BerinSzoka> All I heard was "F2F in Ibiza"
... Ibiza is a nice proposal
<dsinger> Do we have a volunteer to host there :-)?
schunter: other feedback?
<Chris_IAB> Berin, how about a f2f in Siberia... a few people can probably get a lot of work done ;)
<npdoty> scribenick: aleecia
schunter: Jeff started talking with people but did not get to all 108.
... getting better picture of how we have agreement to move forward
... formally, not a decision from us to move forward or not
... have list of choices, see what subset of groups would agree to which proposals
... 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
... if someone says "no matter what, not joining anything any more," then there are no options they support
... publish plan, gather feedback.
<susanisrael> *agree with dsinger
schunter: option 1, execute plan. option 2, careful with what's in 1.0 or 2.0
... explicitly push options into 2.0 version
... option 3, TPE first, compliance later
... option 4, TPE only, no compliance
... option 5, no matter what would like to leave the group
... get input on which options are acceptable to 108 participants
... with this picture, go to Jeff Jaffe and the Director
<johnsimpson> Can you give more explanation of difference of option 1 and option 2?
schunter: 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
... what's supported by a large enough group of stakeholders?
<wseltzer> johnsimpson, explicit work on a v2.0 in option 2.
<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
<ifette> i think people ont eh queue have questions
<Chapell> Thanks @dsinger, helpful to understand
<Chris_IAB> Ian is back!
<Chris_IAB> it's like 1999 in here ;)
ifette: curious, option to move forward like 1 but with goal of simplify spec
... open issues are same as we've had since start of the group
... is there a way forward with TPE so complex. if we drop things from TPE, does it get easier?
schunter: if option 1 or 2, agree on compliance then resolve dependencies with TPE.
... we might be able to drop flags, for instance, from TPE
schunter: first decide what to communicate then resolve TPE
<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?
johnsimpson: clearer understanding on diffs between 1 and 2?
<ifette> npdoty, i think that's one way forward that would potentially work
johnsimpson: option 1 is "we're done" and option 2 is we know we're not done and we'll have yet another version later?
... as a commitment?
<ifette> npdoty, whether you approach it from compliance or tpe, simplifying the entire DNT apparattus
schunter: same discussion internally
<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
<ifette> apologies as I have to drop off, but i appreciate the claification
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
<sidstamm> dsinger, I'm with you on this.
johnsimpson: keep kicking this down the road?
<npdoty> dsinger, sidstamm, ifette one option would be marking features at risk at a call for implementations
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
... in 1.5 years, come back, have 5 or 20 issues pushed, and with experience gained we close them
<sidstamm> npdoty, you mean flag the bits of the TPE that none of the browsers are likely to ship?
<susanisrael> Is the idea that in option 2 there would be a pre-defined set of additional features to be added/resolved?
schunter: basically, if you don't believe in 2.0, you can say that in the poll, or pick several options you can live with
<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. :-)
schunter: say which options you support
... in (2) there may be new economic or tech changes that make new things possible over time
... but think the difference is not large between (1) and (2) options
<dsinger> to WileyS: yes, I am curious to know what people think is discardable. Hence the 'interesting' in my reply
<npdoty> scribenick: 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?
<aleecia> schunter: not a vote
<scribe> scribenick: aleecia
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: stakeholder perspective, which stakeholders are involved for which options
... is there enough support for one (or more)?
<marc> what is sufficient stakeholder buy in?
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: not counting people or companies
<johnsimpson> What if you get about 20 for each option?
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: does it make sense to go down this path?
... other thing, to John's question: depends upon the arguments, not the count
... will understand who's involved for which option
... clearly not a vote
... director has to be convinced option is the best for interoperability and web
<marc> It isn't counting and it clearly is not a vote - W3C staff and W3C Director will make the decision
<ninjamarnau> question is, do we still have faith and momentum - and if, for which way forward.
<marc> Very good point Aleecia
<dsinger> ok, we're trying to find the most viable way forward given people's perspectives and preferences...
<npdoty> aleecia: can you tell me more about interoperability and the web; if there are concrete criteria, helpful to understand up front
aleecia: what are the criteria?
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address some of John's question
jeff: don't think there is an explicit answer
<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?
jeff: wide variations on perspectives on best way forward
(thanks for filling in nick)
jeff: would be informative to get full group to weigh in
... had been discussion about a go / no go
... not a vote of companies, poll of participants, even if multiple from same company
... view points of all are quite valuable
<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?
jeff: if large number of people are in favor of option 1, strong consensus forward for a great interoperable solution to the web
... but contrast, if (5) then director might conclude we cannot get to interoperability
... 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
... moving on to why Jeff was in the queue -
<sidstamm> Chris_IAB, I don't recall it being "bilaterally denounced", though it wasn't exactly greeted with open arms.
jeff: adding detail to option (1) v. (2)
... trying to understand perspectives and capture them in the poll. Had 8 options at one point, culled it back
<Chris_IAB> sidstamm, fair enough, but I didn't really see much, if any support for it... from advocates, or industry.
jeff: Option 1 is the current plan, what the WG was asked to do: get to LC and get a final recommendation
<Chris_IAB> sidstamm, and yet, it has been put forward again as "the best option to move forward" now... I'm confused by that.
jeff: 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."
<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.
jeff: to address concern over lock in, could come back and iterate
dwainberg: process -
... 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.
... Remain confused on criteria, what feedback would be valuable, what the decision process is for the poll. Feeling uncomfortable.
<marc> I support both Aleecia's and David's question about CRITERIA for the poll and for moving forward.
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.
... list of issues, then solve one by one.
... Contrast -- DON'T try to do a package deal.
... Now trying to do it one by one.
... That's the process.
dwainberg: going back to point in July, without being clear on process (criteria?) moving forward, hard to have faith in the process.
... how can I support any of these other than 5 unless there's faith there will be fairness moving forward.
... 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?
<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?
<marc> To summarize David's concerns - the process still appears to be arbitrary and that concerns many people
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
<BerinSzoka> +1 to everything David just said
<dwainberg> +1 Shane
schunter: for closing issues, these are the steps, we follow them for each issue
schunter: if you read the plan and don't think it's clear, please give feedback on specific parts to improve it
<npdoty> the proposed plan (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-announce/2013Sep/0000.html) 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
schunter: plan by W3C staff, editors, and Matthias, but can be changed and collecting feedback now
<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).
<npdoty> ... but if there are open questions regarding Calls for Objections, I think that's good feedback for us to gather now
<WileyS> As "consensus" is determined by the co-chairs, the selection of the new co-chair will be immensly impactful to poll responses.
schunter: sorry it's been bumpy in the past and will execute to plan as much as possible moving forward
dwainberg: ok, will provide feedback, and hope for new versions of the plan
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
<WileyS> Yeah - that's not subjective at all :-)
<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).
schunter: job of the chairs is not to decide, goal is unbiased chairs
... finding the right chair is hard
<WileyS> to dsinger - "try" is the operative term
<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
schunter: need someone to take a step back, put personal opinions on the shelf, assess comments on their substance
<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.
alan: looks like 1-4 are all based on June draft as starting point, yes?
<npdoty> 4 would not be.
<npdoty> and 3 would focus on the TPE instead of Compliance for the time being
schunter: last call for objections was DAA v. June draft, and continue with June draft.
... issue 214 is pull over good parts of old draft(s)
... but starting point is June draft
... alternative drafts may still be incorporated
alan: not a limit on issues raise, but that's where we begin
<rvaneijk> No limits? Well, URL scoring is NOT open for negtotiation !!
alan: if a month from now, we're told "no, this was decided because we selected the June draft," you may get push back
<dsinger> I think that the June draft is an easier target to 'shoot at' -- make proposals against.
schunter: multiple points here. Anyone can raise any issue in principle .
<johnsimpson> Are you saying that everything that was in the "DAA" proposal can be raised again?
schunter: To avoid exploding number of issues, explain why it's needed and provide text
... More constraints, if issue was open in past and closed, resubmit and we auto-close it (scribe confused)
<npdoty> from mts on Tuesday: If an already closed Issue is re-raised without substantial new rationale and change proposal, it will remain closed.
schunter: In the past, arguments on pieces of the DAA draft was not at consensus for path with least objections.
<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?
schunter: we would need reason for DAA draft to have new arguments or we'd look at old discussion and consider it still closed
... (need new information, basically)
<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.
schunter: stick to essentials and keep number of issues open as low as possible
alan: issues with June draft as starting point
<npdoty> the Editors' Draft is not consensus, that's why we still have open issues and change proposals to improve it
alan: given June draft critiqued by a wide spectrum of participants
<justin> Didn't the W3C already formally decide to work off of the June draft?
alan: my objection would be very high if June draft were static, somewhat mitigated as just a starting point
<tlr> also note that we have about 30 issues open against that draft already.
schunter: if there's a better alternative, say so with existing open issues or offer improved text
... if there's text in June draft you can raise a new issue if there isn't one open
... 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.
... 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.
... goal of the group is to minimize text proposals for each issue
jack: poll could provide a different path for the WG to take, but at the same time, WG is starting to execute option (1)
... why not do the poll first?
<Chris_IAB> Mike_Zaneis, see private chat in irc
jack: now have Oct 2 date of issue freeze, but could imagine new issues coming from poll process, which doesn't end until Oct 9
schunter: had this discussion internally too
... poll is not an objective vote, basic input
... but for most people, won't make much difference
... looking for completeness of issues and if we have 500 issues, maybe want option 5
<WileyS> If we go with option 4, then we'd all be wasting alot of time leading up to Oct 9
schunter: use the month to see if we can close issues as we go and collect all the issues
... once we have done this, we can start executing
<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
<johnsimpson> To David Singer: Thanks for your explanation
schunter: based on discussion with director will know best way to move forward
<WileyS> Nick, I don't believe that's sound reasoning in several of the options
schunter: while we get prepared, understand what stakeholders think
jack: why plan I before the outcome of the poll?
schunter: ok, thanks
<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)
<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)
<npdoty> aleecia: insight for internal decision process, appreciate Jeff's comments about reducing options
<npdoty> ... why was the prior consensus working draft no longer on the table?
aleecia: why was the published WD dropped when it was consensus?
schunter: outcome of the DAA v. June draft decision
... can reintroduce specific pieces of text
... didn't black list the old draft, easier to start with short version
... formal decision was last call for objections
<npdoty> aleecia: followup, but the last wd wasn't part of the last call for objections
aleecia: but published WD was never an option
schunter: still part of issue open, can reintroduce texts
<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
schunter: can reintro the whole WD
aleecia: did so, was ignored
schunter: introduce specific parts
... important that we don't - the whole thing should be reintroduced won't get consensus in the group
<npdoty> schunter: I think what would be most constructive would be to propose specific parts
<Chapell> Schunter: re-introducing the entire proposal will not likely be accepted
<Chapell> Aleecia: why not add the last consensus draft as option #6?
<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
<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.
<ninjamarnau> i think aleecia was proposed an option 6 to the poll
<tlr> So let's not conflate the issue by talking about it as "the previous consensus draft", which is simply inaccurate.
<npdoty> schunter: you're proposing a separate Call for Objections on issue 214?
<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.
<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)
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to discuss Shane's point / David's point about poll timing
<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
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
<WileyS> "Supposed to" - operative terms again
<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.
jeff: 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
<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,
<fielding> not a judge.
jeff: fill out the poll near the end and may have more clarity
... could have that information in next few weeks
tlr, that is my point. We at least captured where there was not consensus. Rather than being asked -- AGAIN -- to re-raise issues -- AGAIN.
<Chapell> just putting it out there that it would be extremely helpful to know the new chair before providing feedback
schunter: thanks for feedback
<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?
schunter: anything else on the poll, or moving on to next agenda item
alan: trying to make sure I understand Jeff's comments
... was suggestion to wait 3-4 weeks to provide feedback so better chance of finding out who co-chair is?
... don't want to miss deadline
Jeff: trying not to suggest per se, but noting it's open for 4 weeks
... if chair may influence decisions, there is the option of waiting
<fielding> or to change your entry before the deadline ends.
Schunter: lucky co-chairs were of high quality, confidence in W3C
... assume fairly unbiased co-chair as before. No one's perfect but so far good job in finding co-chairs.
<Chris_IAB> why not extend the poll deadline then?
Schunter: 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
... Don't assume the co-chair will be strongly biased one way or another
<npdoty> yes, poll responses can be updated, and poll will certainly have comment fields if you need to explain your responses
<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.\
aleecia: multiple chairs?
<Chris_IAB> can't we just extend the poll deadline, contingent on the announcement of a new co-chair?
<Chris_IAB> horse, THEN kart
matthias: consideration, yes
<Walter> dsinger: I think you'd make an excellent chair
schunter: next week, open poll
... 10 sept poll opens
... would like feedback on plan
... updated plan
... first week of Oct, issue freeze
... then close poll
... then eval results with director
<Chapell> How do we freeze issues prior to the vote on the proposed plan?
schunter: ideally have an announced co-chair
<npdoty> September 09: Deadline for feedback on the proposed plan
<npdoty> September 10: Poll opens
<npdoty> October 09: The poll closes; chairs and team assess responses.
<npdoty> October 02: Issue Freeze: Issues raised after October 02 will be deferred to be addressed after Last Call.
(thank you Nick)
<johnsimpson> where do we send feed back on plan? to email list?
Alan: confirming, issue freeze prior to poll close?
<wseltzer> yes. we're interleaving several pieces of work here
<npdoty> johnsimpson, yes, feedback is welcome on the list, or you can contact the chairs offlist if you prefer
Alan: that seems misaligned
(we've talked through this on the call today already, fwiw)
schunter: should have list of issues complete, then closing of issues after the call has closed
... take stock of initial proposals now, do phase II closing after
<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.
schunter: you're right, if you decide path 5 and you stop work, issues you care about may close (did I capture that?)
<Chapell> @dsinger - thanks
dsinger, it would help to outline what happens that gets harder
schunter: it's intermixed, but can be done in parallel
schunter: get the work aligned
<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
<hefferjr> Aleecia, I think I heard that "your issues may be pushed out", not "your issues may be closed", but I am not sure
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
... issues addressed after LC would be new issues that apply to June draft that haven't been discussed prior to that without agreement
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to note comething
dsinger: Draft of page we could link to for "what does DNT do" that industry side could link to
(and it's kind of awesome)
<Chris_IAB> dsigner, posted link via the Apple UI?
<susanisrael> dsinger, thank you
<npdoty> dsinger is referring to: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/dnt-for-users.html
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?
<npdoty> don't need to re-raise issues that are currently on the issues list
schunter: on Oct 2, make sure there is an open issue address it.
... if there is one, nothing needed.
<npdoty> we have been working on the Compliance June product: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
<fielding> note that this user draft contains a definition of DNT that is just plain wrong -- completely misleading users.
schunter: if there's an issue without text you like, should add new text
... but this is a should not a must at this phase
... the must is that in Oct 2, make sure issue is OPEN in issue tracker
rob: all remain open if open now and don't need to redo that?
<Chris_IAB> why not just open ALL issues again, and do a complete re-set?
schunter: yes. If raised, not open, it needs to be open by deadline
<Chris_IAB> considering all the change, wouldn't that be a better path forward at this point?
<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
tlr: when talking about all issues open, referring to against the product "compliance june"
... Nick and I should compile a list and send it out
<tlr> +1, good idea
<npdoty> this is the current list we're referring to: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
schunter: can double-check to see if anything's overlooked
(thanks for that link, Nick)
schunter: welcome back, happy reading, sorry it hasn't always been clear
... first step is publishing the plan, make the call, and then follow through
... should lead to a finite termination date
... crank away and get to done
... fine print: will ask for contributions
... don't be surprised if someone calls you
... looking forward to working in this lively group
<jchester2> thank you Matthias
<dsinger> great job, thanks