15:51:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:51:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-dnt-irc
15:51:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:51:54 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dnt
15:51:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
15:51:56 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:51:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:51:57 <trackbot> Date: 11 September 2013
15:52:01 <npdoty> Zakim, this will be 87225
15:52:02 <Zakim> ok, npdoty; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:53:05 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
15:54:30 <WaltMichel> WaltMichel has joined #DNT
15:55:54 <rachel_n_thomas> rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt
15:56:05 <schunter> schunter has joined #dnt
15:56:16 <Chris_IAB> Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
15:57:08 <Chris_IAB> I just joined
15:57:30 <Zakim> +Peder_Magee
15:57:31 <npdoty> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:57:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.203.563.aaaa, jpolonetsky?, +1.650.465.aacc, ??P17, +1.212.768.aadd, ??P19, npdoty, Peder_Magee
15:57:35 <Zakim> - +1.212.768.aadd
15:57:37 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
15:57:49 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jpolonetsky? (2%), ??P17 (66%), ??P19 (19%)
15:57:49 <Zakim> +Wendy
15:57:59 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P19 may be Chris_IAB
15:58:00 <Zakim> +Chris_IAB?; got it
15:58:04 <magee2023263538> magee2023263538 has joined #dnt
15:58:09 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:58:11 <Zakim> + +1.212.768.aaee
15:58:14 <Chris_IAB> I'm on mute
15:58:17 <npdoty> Zakim, ??P17 may be schunter
15:58:17 <Zakim> +schunter?; got it
15:58:18 <Zakim> +Keith_Scarborough
15:58:24 <fielding> fielding has joined #dnt
15:58:28 <rachel_n_thomas> zakimn, aaee is rachel_n_thomas
15:58:31 <Joanne> Joanne has joined #DNT
15:58:34 <Keith> Keith has joined #dnt
15:58:40 <npdoty> Zakim, aaee is rachel_n_thomas
15:58:40 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas; got it
15:58:43 <Zakim> + +1.215.286.aaff
15:58:53 <Zakim> -schunter?
15:58:56 <rachel_n_thomas> sorry nick - i can't spell today.
15:59:00 <WaltMichel> zakim, aaff is me
15:59:01 <Zakim> + +31.65.141.aagg
15:59:01 <Zakim> +WaltMichel; got it
15:59:04 <Zakim> +Fielding
15:59:08 <rvaneijk> Zakim, aagg is me
15:59:08 <Zakim> +rvaneijk; got it
15:59:20 <hwest> hwest has joined #dnt
15:59:21 <Zakim> + +1.212.432.aahh
15:59:23 <tlr> zakim, call thomas-781
15:59:23 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
15:59:24 <Zakim> +Thomas
15:59:30 <Chris_IAB> 661-100-xxxx is me
15:59:39 <efelten> efelten has joined #dnt
15:59:41 <tlr> zakim, I am thomas
15:59:41 <Zakim> ok, tlr, I now associate you with Thomas
15:59:43 <tlr> zakim, mute me
15:59:43 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
15:59:44 <eberkower> Zakim, aahh is eberkower
15:59:44 <Zakim> +eberkower; got it
15:59:55 <Zakim> - +1.650.465.aacc
16:00:03 <Zakim> +moneill2
16:00:10 <Zakim> +hwest
16:00:21 <Zakim> + +1.202.331.aaii
16:00:25 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
16:00:30 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:00:30 <Zakim> + +1.609.258.aajj
16:00:31 <npdoty> Zakim, aaaa is Lynn_Nielsen
16:00:31 <Zakim> +Lynn_Nielsen; got it
16:00:36 <efelten> Zakim, aajj is me
16:00:36 <Zakim> +efelten; got it
16:00:41 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
16:00:49 <Zakim> +SusanIsrael
16:00:52 <Zakim> +hefferjr
16:00:53 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:00:54 <Zakim> +Jeff
16:00:55 <kj> kj has joined #dnt
16:01:12 <npdoty> Zakim, aaii is Peter4As
16:01:12 <Zakim> +Peter4As; got it
16:01:13 <peter-4As> peter-4As has joined #dnt
16:01:19 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me please
16:01:19 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:01:26 <npdoty> Zakim, Peter4As is peter-4As
16:01:27 <WileyS> WileyS has joined #dnt
16:01:27 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:01:28 <Zakim> +peter-4As; got it
16:01:35 <Zakim> +RichardWeaver
16:01:40 <Zakim> +Joanne
16:01:44 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:01:46 <Zakim> + +1.646.827.aakk
16:01:47 <Richard_comScore> Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:01:47 <Zakim> + +1.650.465.aall
16:01:48 <Zakim> +WileyS
16:01:49 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:01:53 <dwainberg> dwainberg has joined #dnt
16:01:54 <Zakim> +??P46
16:01:54 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:01:56 <tlr> zakim, drop rigo
16:01:57 <Zakim> Rigo is being disconnected
16:01:57 <Zakim> -Rigo
16:01:57 <Zakim> +[Apple]
16:01:59 <tlr> zakim, call rigo-mobile
16:01:59 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
16:02:00 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:02:03 <schunter> Zakim, ??P46 is schunter
16:02:03 <Zakim> +schunter; got it
16:02:04 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:02:04 <Zakim> +[CDT]
16:02:04 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
16:02:11 <Zakim> + +1.202.344.aamm
16:02:15 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:02:20 <Chris_IAB> it's much better now
16:02:35 <hwest> zakim, mute me
16:02:36 <Zakim> hwest should now be muted
16:02:47 <npdoty> Zakim, aall is david_macmillan
16:02:47 <Zakim> +david_macmillan; got it
16:02:54 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:02:58 <FPFJoeN> zakim, please mute me
16:02:59 <Zakim> sorry, FPFJoeN, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:03:02 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:03:04 <Zakim> +kulick
16:03:04 <Lmastria_DAA> Lmastria_DAA has joined #dnt
16:03:14 <schunter> Volunteers to scribe?
16:03:20 <Zakim> +Ari
16:03:24 <ARi> ARi has joined #dnt
16:03:24 <tlr> zakim, aamm is zaneis
16:03:24 <Zakim> +zaneis; got it
16:03:25 <npdoty> Zakim, aamm is MikeZaneis
16:03:25 <Zakim> sorry, npdoty, I do not recognize a party named 'aamm'
16:03:36 <Mike_Zaneis> Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
16:03:40 <WileyS> Zakim, who is on?
16:03:40 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, WileyS.
16:03:51 <npdoty> Zakim, jpolonetsky is actually FPFJoeN
16:03:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'jpolonetsky is actually FPFJoeN', npdoty
16:03:54 <FPFJoeN> Zakim, FPFJoeN is 202-587-4870
16:03:55 <Zakim> sorry, FPFJoeN, I do not recognize a party named 'FPFJoeN'
16:03:58 <npdoty> Zakim, jpolonetsky is really FPFJoeN
16:03:58 <Zakim> +FPFJoeN; got it
16:04:02 <FPFJoeN> that's correct
16:04:05 <npdoty> Zakim, choose a victim
16:04:05 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose efelten
16:04:20 <efelten> ok
16:04:26 <dsinger> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Lynn_Nielsen, FPFJoeN, Chris_IAB?, npdoty, Peder_Magee, Wendy, rachel_n_thomas, Keith_Scarborough, WaltMichel, rvaneijk, Fielding, eberkower (muted), Thomas
16:04:27 <npdoty> scribenick: efelten
16:04:29 <Zakim> ... (muted), moneill2, hwest (muted), peter-4As, efelten, SusanIsrael, hefferjr, Jeff, RichardWeaver, Joanne, +1.646.827.aakk, david_macmillan, WileyS, schunter, [Apple], [CDT],
16:04:29 <Zakim> ... Rigo, zaneis, Chris_Pedigo, kulick, Ari
16:04:29 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
16:04:50 <FPFJoeN> Zakim, please mute FPFJoeN
16:04:50 <Zakim> FPFJoeN should now be muted
16:04:53 <FPFJoeN> thanks
16:04:59 <Zakim> +LeeTien
16:05:09 <dwainberg> zakim, aakk is dwainberg
16:05:09 <Zakim> +dwainberg; got it
16:05:17 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:05:27 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:05:30 <Zakim> +Chapell
16:05:57 <Chris_IAB> Can Air join on behalf of NAI
16:06:04 <Chris_IAB> Ari, I mean
16:06:11 <justin> That is not the case.
16:06:12 <Zakim> +Aleecia
16:06:18 <justin> That's what we do every call, David
16:06:23 <efelten> Discussion of who is allowed to participate in the call.
16:06:35 <Zakim> -Rigo
16:06:41 <efelten> dwainberg: Have typically had lots of non WG members.
16:06:59 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:07:05 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:07:08 <efelten> schunter: Allow Ari to participate for today, take up the call access issue later
16:07:20 <tlr> zakim, drop rigo
16:07:20 <Zakim> Rigo is being disconnected
16:07:21 <Zakim> -Rigo
16:07:23 <efelten> … Main point is to make sure everyone on call is identified
16:07:23 <tlr> zakm, call rigo-781
16:07:26 <tlr> zakm, call rigo-mobile
16:07:49 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:07:52 <adrianba> zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:07:52 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:07:56 <efelten> aleecia: Reason for not having anon callers was to avoid press, so members didn't need PR clearance
16:08:25 <efelten> schunter: First topic is feedback on proposed plan
16:08:41 <wseltzer> Topic: Proposed Plan
16:08:43 <efelten> … Push this back a bit, let Nick explain the poll first
16:08:45 <ARi> for what it's worth, I've been participating in calls, face to face meetings and workshops for more than a year
16:08:58 <efelten> … Poll will go live soon, then 3 weeks-ish to respond
16:09:00 <ARi> I'm not a voting member but as engaged as anyone
16:09:05 <dsinger> zakim, agenda?
16:09:05 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:09:11 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:09:29 <efelten> npdoty: Poll was suggested by schunter in email to group of Sept 3
16:09:32 <npdoty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0011.html
16:09:47 <wseltzer> [agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0017.html ]
16:09:51 <efelten> … options on how best to continue
16:09:55 <wseltzer> wseltzer has changed the topic to: Agenda, 11 Sep. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0017.html
16:09:56 <Chris_IAB> ARi, sound to me like a revenue issue, eh?  We have plenty of "invited experts" from advocacy, but apparently industry is has to pay to play
16:10:00 <efelten> … feedback to W3C from participants
16:10:13 <efelten> … W3C director makes decision, useful to document group's opinion
16:10:18 <jeffwilson> jeffwilson has joined #dnt
16:10:19 <Zakim> +JeffWilson
16:10:33 <ARi> Chris, don't get me started
16:10:42 <Chris_IAB> Hey ARi, haven't you always wanted to join the circus? ;)
16:10:43 <WileyS> Will poll submissions be public?
16:11:01 <efelten> schunter: Alternatives were sent around in email
16:11:13 <efelten> … all the options in email will be available in poll
16:11:16 <dsinger> To become an invited expert, just make the case that you are an expert and cannot easily become a member :-)
16:11:18 <efelten> … plus comment field
16:11:20 <WileyS> Matthias - your volume is VERY high on the call.  Is anyone else getting that?
16:11:30 <npdoty> WileyS, I would commonly make the responses public, but responses only made by participants in the WG
16:11:35 <Zakim> -Aleecia
16:11:36 <efelten> … on each option, say can/cannot live with
16:11:58 <Zakim> +Aleecia
16:12:12 <WileyS> Nick - thank you for the response.  So to confirm, all poll submissions by WG members will be public for the world to see - including the press.  Correct?
16:12:22 <efelten> … idea is to get general idea of opinion in the group on the various options
16:12:30 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
16:12:31 <npdoty> WileyS, that is my proposal, yes.
16:12:36 <efelten> … ideally want all participants to speak up, not just the most active ones
16:12:57 <Zakim> -david_macmillan
16:12:58 <efelten> … follow-on to Jeff's listening tour
16:13:05 <WileyS> Nick, are you open to a more closed polling/voting process?
16:13:16 <efelten> schunter: questions or feedback on poll?
16:13:42 <dwainberg> q+
16:13:46 <efelten> npdoty: In response to Shane's question, normal practice would have responses be public, but can do otherswise if chairs want
16:13:48 <WileyS> My goal would be to get as honest feedback as possible
16:13:58 <tlr> q+
16:14:09 <efelten> schunter: Can say it's public within the group only
16:14:09 <schunter> q?
16:14:13 <schunter> ack d
16:14:14 <efelten> … opinions?
16:14:33 <efelten> dwainberg: Discussed this on a previous call but still unclear.
16:14:45 <dsinger> I think we want honesty, which suggests group visibility but not press.  Neither being inhibited by publication nor grandstanding would be helpful, IMHO.
16:14:46 <npdoty> dates from schunter: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0027.html opens September 18, closes October 9
16:14:48 <efelten> … want to review outcome structure and process
16:15:01 <WileyS> Expected inputs, decision criteria, and expected outputs
16:15:03 <jeff> q+
16:15:04 <Chris_IAB> jeff, please point to your definition of "significant business interest in results from W3C" -- from that definition, you should remove all invited experts from companies who advocate for users (that would include both advocacy groups and industry, to be fair)
16:15:06 <tlr> q- later
16:15:39 <efelten> schunter: poll will generate raw data, chair and staff will summarize, summary and statistics are input to Director
16:15:41 <susanisrael> prefer to keep comments on the poll within the group.  Would be ok with releasing aggregate numbers/results to the press
16:15:48 <dsinger> we're trying to find the "most viable" way forward.  if everyone chooses "no confidence" that might not exist :-(
16:15:55 <Chris_IAB> jeff, that would leave only pure academics as qualified to be invited experts...
16:15:56 <efelten> … look for sensible option with sufficient support
16:16:23 <jeff> q-
16:16:38 <tlr> q-
16:16:46 <efelten> … idea is to give broad piece of information to director to help his decision
16:16:47 <npdoty> we have tended to do our work in public, which has advantages for transparency and makes it easier for us not to have to keep secrets within the 100+ members of our group
16:16:58 <Chris_IAB> jeff, and to date, it's not been a fair or balanced judgement call-- it's always been slanted towards favoritism for advocacy companies
16:17:08 <efelten> dwainberg: clarifying, this is not a vote, there are no percentage thresholds, correct?
16:17:19 <efelten> … comes down to persuasiveness of comments, correct?
16:17:22 <npdoty> +1 that it's not a vote
16:17:24 <dsinger> q+
16:17:31 <efelten> schunter: comments are very important
16:17:37 <npdoty> q+ to note that it's not a call for objections
16:18:00 <efelten> … not only numbers, also pay attention to which types of participants take which positions
16:18:32 <efelten> … right outcome is one that gives better odds of reaching good outcome from the group
16:18:47 <efelten> … comments are useful for understanding this
16:19:08 <susanisrael> npdoty, I'm ok with that but there was a request for preferences, and I think the value of  not releasing comments to the press,is that  we will get comments that are more functional and less for public positioning but I understand your point
16:19:19 <efelten> … want to understand why people have the preferences they do
16:19:19 <npdoty> q?
16:19:26 <schunter> ack dsi
16:19:43 <efelten> dsinger: trying to determine viability, no point in doing something if nobody wants to work on it
16:20:03 <efelten> … pointless to plan for version 2 if nobody will continue beyond version 1
16:20:04 <Zakim> + +1.650.813.aann
16:20:07 <robsherman> zakim, aann is robsherman
16:20:07 <Zakim> +robsherman; got it
16:20:20 <schunter> q?
16:20:27 <schunter> ack n
16:20:27 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to note that it's not a call for objections
16:20:30 <schunter> mute me
16:20:35 <efelten> … if lots of people want to walk away, points to wrapping up
16:20:36 <schunter> zakim, mute me
16:20:36 <Zakim> schunter should now be muted
16:20:54 <efelten> npdoty: will use same poll technology as in call-for-objections, this is not a call for objections
16:21:15 <schunter> Zakim, unmute me
16:21:15 <Zakim> schunter should no longer be muted
16:21:19 <schunter> q?
16:21:20 <efelten> … feel free to respond even if you don't have detailed comments, please respond even if you're only agreeing with somebody else
16:21:37 <efelten> schunter: other questions/feedback on poll?
16:21:42 <efelten> … none heard, move on
16:22:10 <efelten> … still looking for comments based on email, until Friday Sept 13
16:22:19 <efelten> … other suggestions/comments now?
16:22:50 <npdoty> to repeat, comments on the plan forward and poll are requested by this Friday, September 13th
16:22:58 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:22:58 <efelten> … can still comment by email
16:23:21 <efelten> … note all issue closings should be recorded in writing per normal process
16:23:36 <kulick> kulick has left #dnt
16:23:40 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:23:45 <efelten> … won't close issue without email to announce list, so people monitoring that list get fair warning and can speak up
16:23:46 <schunter> q?
16:24:06 <efelten> … any further comments can be emailed to list
16:24:36 <efelten> … note that if only one resolution is proposed to an item, can ask is this ok then close issue
16:24:46 <schunter> q?
16:24:54 <WileyS> +q
16:25:03 <efelten> … on to item 5 of agenda
16:25:22 <npdoty> Topic: Raising Issues
16:25:23 <wseltzer> Topic: Tutorial
16:25:26 <WileyS> Matthias - apologies - how long will we give WG members to raise an issue to closing of an issue post the initial email sent to the announce list?
16:25:36 <efelten> schunter: ask npdoty for tutorial on how to add text, raise issues etc
16:25:44 <wseltzer> s/Topic: Tutorial//
16:25:45 <schunter> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
16:25:59 <justin> ack wileys
16:26:04 <schunter> q?
16:26:37 <efelten> wileys: how long do we have to react to proposal to close issue, until issue is closed?
16:26:46 <efelten> … good to have clear expectation
16:27:04 <efelten> schunter: 5 minutes (laughter)
16:27:38 <efelten> wileys: recommend 2 weeks, make sure people traveling etc don't miss it or didn't have time to discuss internally
16:27:41 <npdoty> q+
16:27:47 <Chris_IAB> +1 to WleyS's point on timeframe = 2 weeks = reasonable
16:28:07 <efelten> schunter: two weeks sounds good
16:28:10 <eberkower> Two BUSINESS weeks, correct?
16:28:24 <wseltzer> two calendar weeks
16:28:24 <efelten> … that's 14 days
16:28:28 <WileyS> 2 calendar weeks (10 business days)
16:28:30 <eberkower> ok
16:28:39 <schunter> q?
16:28:41 <WileyS> -q
16:28:43 <schunter> ack np
16:28:54 <efelten> npdoty: concern about slowing things down
16:29:10 <efelten> … don't want to wait two weeks, get a small delta suggested, then another two weeks
16:29:15 <efelten> … don't want process to drag out
16:29:57 <efelten> wileys: understand npdoty's point but need time for internal discussion
16:29:58 <dsinger> q+
16:30:00 <justin> Is a two-week window typical for W3C working groups?
16:30:07 <efelten> … trying to be realistic but get to closure
16:30:15 <laurengelman> laurengelman has joined #dnt
16:30:25 <dsinger> q-
16:30:32 <JackHobaugh> Also, discussions that include Europe take at least 2 days for a round-trip due to the time differences.
16:30:40 <efelten> … if go too fast people will be asking for more time afterward
16:31:10 <Zakim> +??P24
16:31:12 <efelten> schunter: chairs can say they see consensus, people can speak up if they disagree
16:31:22 <dsinger> I guess you can always persuade the group that an issue needs more discussion or time (but please try to be specific what is needed, we can't leave everything open-ended)
16:31:30 <Zakim> -Rigo
16:31:34 <efelten> … can go into call for objections if issue is unclear
16:31:35 <laurengelman> Zakim, ??P24 is laurengelman
16:31:35 <Zakim> +laurengelman; got it
16:31:41 <tlr> zakim, call rigo-mobile
16:31:41 <Zakim> ok, tlr; the call is being made
16:31:42 <Zakim> +Rigo
16:31:51 <tlr> zakim, drop rigo
16:31:51 <Zakim> Rigo is being disconnected
16:31:53 <Zakim> -Rigo
16:31:54 <schunter> q?
16:32:02 <efelten> … don't think this becomes a problem because there shouldn't often be multiple rounds on one issue
16:32:06 <WileyS> Thank you
16:32:25 <npdoty> Topic: Raising Issues
16:32:25 <efelten> … back to item 5
16:32:41 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
16:32:44 <efelten> … posted a link to the tracking june product where all open issues against june draft are recorded
16:33:11 <dsinger> q+ on the relationship of the Wiki to the issue list
16:33:12 <efelten> … set date of XXX to get resolution / change proposals on these
16:33:25 <fielding> As I said on July 24 call: "FTR, I object to publishing the [TCS] WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft. I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition, or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed."
16:33:34 <efelten> … asking for complete text proposals to resolve an issue
16:34:15 <efelten> … in my opinion, current text in working draft is on the table as one proposal
16:34:28 <efelten> … if you don't like the current text, you should propose an alternative
16:34:38 <efelten> … or you can propose removing text from june draft
16:34:56 <amyc> amyc has joined #dnt
16:34:57 <efelten> … once we have alternatives we can have meaningful discussion and make a choice
16:35:22 <ChrisPedigoOPA> Can one proposal be "no provision at all"?
16:35:31 <Zakim> +Amy_Colando
16:35:36 <efelten> … for example, if nobody proposes an alternative definition of tracking, and nobody proposes to delete it, we'll end up with existing june draft text
16:35:40 <tlr> chris, yes
16:35:50 <ChrisPedigoOPA> thx
16:35:50 <efelten> … ask npdoty to explain how the process is best organized
16:36:11 <tlr> q?
16:36:14 <efelten> npdoty: will document this to the mailing list
16:36:28 <efelten> … suggested process for phase 1 (until Oct 2)
16:36:40 <efelten> … if you have change proposal, send email to public mailing list and to nick
16:36:47 <efelten> … subject line says it's a change proposal
16:37:00 <efelten> … propose specific modifications to text, and provide rationale
16:37:29 <efelten> … nick will help consolidate and/or turn it into a change proposal in the wiki
16:37:44 <efelten> … that way the issue list and wiki will be accurate and complete
16:38:16 <dsinger> so, for every Change Proposal there will be an Issue, but there may be Issues that do not have Change Proposals?
16:38:18 <efelten> … if you have a question that isn't a change proposal, we can add it as an issue to a new product that will be created
16:38:19 <dwainberg> q+
16:38:24 <schunter> ack d
16:38:40 <efelten> dwainberg: please summarize diff between issue vs change proposal
16:39:05 <efelten> schunter: example of issue: how do we define tracking
16:39:11 <dsinger> e.g. I don't see any issue numbers at http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG#Change_proposals, nor do I see an issue that matches e.g. http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Short_Term
16:39:13 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:39:32 <efelten> … example of change proposal: change definition of tracking to this text: [whatever]
16:40:02 <efelten> … issue is a decision we need to make, change proposal is one of the choices available in making that decision
16:40:12 <npdoty> dsinger, that wiki page links to issue-134
16:40:22 <schunter> q?
16:40:36 <dsinger> well, two of the proposals do...
16:40:36 <efelten> dwainberg: thanks, look forward to nick's writeup
16:41:00 <efelten> schunter: change proposal must propose specific edits to text
16:41:20 <npdoty> dsinger, I tried to make sure each page (which contains multiple proposals) links back to an issue -- all proposals on each page should be responsive to the same issue, I believe
16:41:24 <efelten> … "I don't like this" is not a change proposal
16:41:26 <schunter> ack dsi
16:41:26 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to comment on the relationship of the Wiki to the issue list
16:41:41 <efelten> dsinger: to clarify, every change proposal should have an issue
16:41:44 <tlr> it should be there
16:41:46 <tlr> q+
16:42:00 <tlr> ack thomas
16:42:07 <efelten> … each change proposal should be linked to an issue, put that issue on the page
16:42:20 <susanisrael> q+
16:42:27 <efelten> … except possibly for editorial proposals
16:42:39 <dsinger> would be good to the put the issue numbers on http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG#Change_proposals
16:42:40 <npdoty> yes, that would be a bug if I didn't have a link back to an issue, let me know
16:42:49 <efelten> tlr: this should be the case, please tell nick if you see one missing
16:42:56 <tlr> zakim, mute thomas
16:42:56 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
16:43:18 <efelten> schunter: if at the end we have an issue with no change proposal, then we won't need to address it
16:43:49 <efelten> … unless there's a concrete text proposal it's very unlikely we'll address the issue
16:43:54 <npdoty> +1, I suggest we handle those issues by postponing them past the Last Call
16:44:03 <schunter> q?
16:44:10 <schunter> ack susa
16:44:21 <efelten> susanisrael: want to make sure we understand deadlines
16:44:35 <efelten> … issue freeze on oct 2, that's still the date?
16:45:13 <efelten> … change proposal deadline is different, can continue to raise change proposals until issue is closed, or is oct 2 deadline for change proposals too?
16:45:47 <efelten> schunter: oct 2 is deadline for raising issues
16:46:07 <fielding> suggestions for changes can be sent at any time, regardless of other processes
16:46:17 <efelten> … must have one or more initial draft change proposals by oct 2, otherwise issue will be set aside
16:46:29 <npdoty> as described in Phase 2 of the proposed plan http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0010.html we would then add change proposals and counter-proposals and if necessary go through those alternatives in a call for objections
16:46:33 <efelten> … main task will be to work on issues that have more than one possibility on the table as of oct 2
16:46:34 <JackHobaugh> Nick, is it possible to add the ISSUE-# to the change proposals in the wiki?
16:46:52 <npdoty> JackHobaugh, it's already linked from the individual pages, and we'll add it to the overview page as well
16:46:53 <efelten> … for those issues that are still on the table, more change proposals will be possible after oct 2
16:47:27 <efelten> … if no consensus emerges, will eventually do call for objections
16:47:33 <JackHobaugh> Thanks, it would be good to be able to see the ISSUE-# in the link.
16:47:35 <efelten> … want to identify which issues are easy and which hard
16:47:36 <schunter> q?
16:47:57 <npdoty> any issue the group wants to be addressed needs to have a change proposal by October 2nd
16:48:02 <efelten> susanisrael: to clarify: you want most of the change proposals by oct 2, but those proposals can evolve later?
16:48:20 <efelten> schunter: yes, should propose change by oct 2 but can evolve wording later
16:48:42 <schunter> q?
16:48:50 <schunter>    September 13: Deadline for feedback on the proposed plan
16:48:50 <schunter>         September 18 (new): Revised plan is announced
16:48:50 <schunter>         September 18 (updated): Poll opens
16:48:50 <schunter>         October 02: Issue     Freeze: Issues raised after October 02 will be deferred to be     addressed after Last Call.
16:48:51 <schunter>            October 09: The poll closes; chairs and team     assess responses.
16:48:51 <schunter> 
16:48:56 <efelten> … pragmatic approach to see where there is different of opinion worth working out
16:49:05 <efelten> s/different/difference/
16:49:36 <efelten> schunter: done with agenda item 5
16:50:02 <npdoty> Topic: Publication of Working Draft
16:50:22 <fielding> As I said on July 24 call: "FTR, I object to publishing the [TCS] WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft. I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition [in April WD], or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed."
16:50:35 <efelten> … sent around document, justin put disclaimers in document saying it is not consensus yet
16:50:53 <efelten> … would like the group to get feedback into draft and move on to publishing as working draft
16:51:30 <efelten> … ask everyone to look at draft, suggest any improvements
16:51:40 <fielding> q+
16:51:41 <dwainberg> q+
16:51:45 <efelten> … improvement should be actionable
16:52:05 <amyc> and to clarify, no need to resubmit change proposals that we already submitted on this WD, correct?
16:52:10 <efelten> … will have overall disclaimer that document is not consensus, don't need to put it in everywhere
16:52:24 <npdoty> amyc, that's right, we already have change proposals tracked
16:52:37 <npdoty> ... and I'm also helping the editors keep a list of editorial suggestions, which haven't all been made
16:52:38 <npdoty> q?
16:52:41 <efelten> … input on text of the disclaimer is welcome too
16:52:53 <schunter> q?
16:52:59 <schunter> ack fi
16:53:12 <efelten> fielding: already objected to defn of tracking that is in june draft
16:53:30 <efelten> … would have been ok with defn from previous working draft
16:53:36 <justin> I will resubmit my language as a CHANGE PROPOSAL and have Nick add it to the Wiki.
16:53:45 <efelten> … have spoken up often about this
16:53:57 <efelten> … this needs to be fixed before publication as WD
16:54:01 <dsinger> Roy, saying you have an objection is not the same as stating it.  I still don't understand what you object to.
16:54:42 <efelten> schunter: no question that there are some objections to this text, not trying to resolve these all before WD publication
16:54:48 <npdoty> I'm confused, there isn't universal agreement on many sections of the drafts; I don't expect to get to universal agreement before publishing a working draft
16:54:52 <amyc> thanks justin
16:55:05 <efelten> … would be useful to have pointers to alternative text in the document
16:55:17 <efelten> … important to document your suggested text in the wiki
16:55:35 <tlr> note that the edtor's draft has a link to ISSUE-5
16:55:49 <tlr> right next to the definition of "tracking"
16:55:50 <schunter> q?
16:56:08 <efelten> … do we need to put all proposals into the text, or just refer people to the wiki
16:56:21 <dsinger> Notes that there is a serious editorial error;  there are section headings missing after 3.8, so "tracking" is defined in a section labelled "de-identified"
16:56:22 <efelten> fielding: can't say there are no objections to text or to publishing in current state
16:56:40 <efelten> … shouldn't have to repeatedly object
16:56:43 <justin> FWIW, the wiki already has a different tracking definition from fielding.  But I will add my own as well (which is shorter and perhaps simpler).
16:56:49 <npdoty> dsinger, I have a diff to the editors that fixes some of the headings
16:56:56 <efelten> … change was made without consulting group, better to revert text
16:57:00 <schunter> q?
16:57:01 <justin> Lots of stuff was changed in the June Draft. (?)
16:57:03 <Chris_IAB> what's the chair's response to this?
16:57:04 <schunter> ack d
16:57:05 <efelten> schunter: thanks
16:57:09 <WileyS> +1 to David Singer - too many editorial issues with the Swire/W3C Staff (June) Draft for publication at this time.
16:57:12 <npdoty> q+ Aleecia
16:57:17 <npdoty> q+ dwainberg
16:57:24 <npdoty> ack Aleecia
16:57:47 <efelten> aleecia: disagree with fielding about how tracking should be defined, but agree that both of us have spoken repeatedly for alternatives
16:57:48 <jeff> q+
16:57:51 <npdoty> I still have a list of editorial suggestions we need to work through
16:58:00 <efelten> … frustrating to have to keep re-raising these
16:58:06 <dsinger> volunteers to deal with editorial issues (along with the other editors).
16:58:11 <dwainberg> +1 Aleecia
16:58:23 <efelten> … feels like a waste of time re-raise objection and nothing happens
16:58:26 <efelten> schunter: thanks
16:58:26 <npdoty> q+ to respond on editorial issues
16:58:32 <npdoty> ack dwainberg
16:58:35 <jeff> q- later
16:58:54 <efelten> dwainberg: will there be opportunity to object to publication of text in working draft?
16:58:57 <tlr> q+
16:58:59 <tlr> w/in 31
16:59:10 <justin> If Nick has a list of editorial changes, I am happy to do it.  I will coordinate with him.  But Matthias had suggested we hold off while we were considering publishing as a working draft.
16:59:27 <efelten> … is that separate from suggesting changes for the oct 2 process?
16:59:29 <dsinger> I think we can re-publish as frequently as we like.  Changes now to fix editorial issues, reflect the correct consensus, and so on.  CPs/Issues to fix substantive problems?
17:00:07 <Zakim> -WaltMichel
17:00:08 <efelten> schunter: in WD, can say in text that we don't have consensus on definition of tracking, and point to issue 5
17:00:33 <efelten> … can follow this approach generally, put notes and wiki-pointers into text where there are disagreements
17:00:38 <jeff> q- later
17:00:51 <efelten> … suggest this strategy for dealing with disagreements about proposed WD text
17:01:00 <dsinger> can I try?
17:01:05 <schunter> yes
17:01:18 <efelten> dwainberg: on mailing list, I objected to publication of this as WD
17:01:26 <jeff> q-
17:01:33 <efelten> … if those objections don't stand, want to understand what the process is regarding WD publication
17:01:37 <fielding> To clarify, I did not object to the tracking definition not being resolved in the June draft -- I objected to an arbitrarily new definition being added to the draft without agreement from the WG, which is a problem because the new definition is inconsistent with the rest of the WD and vastly increases the scope of DNT. Justin's prior definition wasn't perfect, but at least it was consistent with the WG discussions and the rest of the draft.
17:01:57 <efelten> … still not clear on what schunter is asking for
17:02:46 <efelten> dsinger: WD should reflect clearly where there is agreement, where there is disagreement and the nature of the disagreement
17:02:47 <tlr> q+
17:03:05 <efelten> dwainberg: seems like a lot of work to label disagreements and open issues in the proposed WD text
17:03:07 <tlr> ack thomas
17:03:26 <schunter> Concrete improvements that I gathered are:
17:03:51 <efelten> dsinger: for now we can add stuff to WD draft to note disagreements and open issues, but shouldn't litigate the disagreements
17:03:51 <schunter> - Replace concrete text by pointers to the corresponding text on the wiki
17:03:56 <schunter> - Add a section heading
17:04:20 <efelten> dwainberg: prior to publication as WD, editors will add to text links to disagreements and issues?
17:04:30 <efelten> tlr: already done, if something is missing please tell the editors
17:04:40 <justin> Or please tell npdoty who is coordinating all editorial fixes!
17:04:40 <schunter> - Add a disclaimer that the list of issues is not yet complete and new issues can be done by [Deadline]
17:04:54 <efelten> … can re-publish WD if we need to make minor editorial changes later
17:05:17 <efelten> … not a requirement that there be consensus on the text, text says explicitly that nobody particularly endorses it
17:05:25 <WileyS> Thomas, respectfully, it seems odd to be so tied to process at this point when the document itself was generated outside of standard process.
17:05:31 <Chris_IAB> tlr, you sound angry?
17:05:50 <efelten> … let's move from process discussion to suggestions of specific changes to make it publishable as WD,
17:06:06 <efelten> … that is, places where issues are not noted in the text
17:06:18 <WileyS> I believe the issues aren't with the process "at this point", but rather, issues are still attached to the initial development of this document outside of standard process.
17:06:25 <efelten> … WD is not an indication of consensus, should be very clear on that
17:06:32 <tlr> chris_iab, I don't think so
17:06:34 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:06:34 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:06:43 <efelten> schunter: got valuable feedback on this call, will channel to the editors
17:07:09 <efelten> … plan to do all necessary text fixes to publish next draft in a week or so
17:07:34 <efelten> … is one week enough to get necessary text fixes in place?
17:07:45 <efelten> … just editorial fixes
17:07:45 <susanisrael> As I understand Roy's and Aleecia's objections to the definition of tracking in the working draft, they are concerned that , the current definition is NOT a reflection of the group's work--not just that it does not represent consensus.  Roy, correct?
17:07:53 <fielding> To be clear, the definition of tracking in the June draft is not an accurate presentation of the WG's discussions
17:08:04 <Chris_IAB> tlr, just sounded that way, as you are normally very calm and collected
17:08:35 <schunter> I agree to fielding
17:08:36 <efelten> dwainberg: can we have two weeks?
17:08:39 <tlr> fielding, there's a link to issue-5 there.
17:08:41 <efelten> dsinger: need to get this out the door
17:08:53 <efelten> … most recent published WD is very old, misleading
17:09:05 <Chris_IAB> what's the particular urgency?
17:09:15 <JackHobaugh> Is W3C Editor's Draft 06 September 2013 the version we are discussing now?
17:09:21 <efelten> schunter: will email the list, asking for changes in time for new draft next week
17:09:39 <schunter> qq?
17:09:39 <wseltzer> JackHobaugh, yes
17:09:40 <schunter> q?
17:09:40 <efelten> … will get changes implemented within two weeks
17:09:44 <schunter> ack np
17:09:44 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to respond on editorial issues
17:09:45 <Chris_IAB> JackHobaugh, I think it's the "June Draft" that Swire made up (to Roy's good point)
17:10:16 <efelten> npdoty: saw questions on IRC, suggestions for editorial fixes
17:10:35 <efelten> … have been noting those, will work on getting them into document
17:10:38 <WileyS> I believe all of the open issues noted in the pre-Swire/W3C Staff (June) Draft need to be pulled forward before something is published.  Am I hearing correctly that everyone agrees and that will occur prior to publication?
17:10:57 <efelten> … happy to help manage the collation of edits
17:11:08 <JackHobaugh> The issues designated in the Sep 6 Editors' Draft do not appear to match up with the 23 open issues.  There are extra issues and issues missing.
17:11:16 <justin> I don't understand your point WileyS.
17:11:34 <efelten> schunter: move on to ISSUE-2 and ISSUE-4
17:11:44 <justin> Open issues are noted in the June draft.  I suspect you're referring to something else though,
17:11:47 <npdoty> that's issue 214, I believe
17:12:08 <tlr> issue-214?
17:12:08 <trackbot> issue-214 -- Adding to last public working draft -- raised
17:12:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/214
17:12:16 <efelten> … issues suggest grabbing useful text from old draft, transplant into new draft
17:12:20 <WileyS> The currently public working draft has many issues highlighted within the document.  I'm suggesting these need to be pulled forward into the Swire/W3C Staff (June) Draft prior to publication (many open issues aren't in there).
17:12:26 <efelten> s/ISSUE-2 and ISSUE-4/ISSUE-214/
17:12:34 <efelten> … how to best organize this process
17:12:36 <dsinger> q+ to suggest a companion document
17:12:38 <npdoty> JackHobaugh, justin -- I believe the issues in the current editors' draft are links to issues that were up to date as of mid-June, when I was last asked to do that update
17:13:00 <efelten> … perhaps should break up the big ISSUE-214 into smaller actionable suggestions
17:13:19 <WileyS> Justin - it appeared several were missing - I'll double check
17:13:27 <efelten> … easier to implement and decide on smaller pieces
17:13:31 <npdoty> WileyS, I believe the editors' draft was updated by me at the group's request to include all the open issues as of June (which should be up-to-date with the issues in the April 30th Working Draft)
17:13:43 <efelten> … turn the one issue into, say, 15-20 issues
17:13:56 <efelten> … then can discuss issue by issue in the normal way
17:14:06 <justin> WileyS, I see.  I probably wrote those so don't object on principle!  But there is a general statement that nothing is consensus, and all the extra language might make the document less readable.  Don't feel terribly strongly though.
17:14:06 <efelten> … problem is how to go about doing this
17:14:14 <dsinger> q?
17:14:20 <efelten> … how should we organize ourselves
17:14:34 <schunter> q?
17:14:39 <schunter> ack dsi
17:14:39 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest a companion document
17:14:44 <efelten> … if we nothing about this, ISSUE-214 would require a specific set of edits to implement it
17:15:04 <efelten> dsinger: last draft was hard to read because normative requirements were hidden in non-normative text
17:15:28 <efelten> … was hard to discuss because we spent a lot of time on data that wasn't normative
17:15:45 <efelten> … perhaps keep an annex or separate document for useful non-normative material
17:16:07 <efelten> … would that take the pressure off the document, by letting text stay alive in the annex?
17:16:11 <schunter> q?
17:16:19 <efelten> … is this a useful approach?
17:16:19 <npdoty> +1, I like this idea
17:16:27 <schunter> +1
17:16:33 <efelten> [crickets]
17:16:52 <npdoty> I suggested an appendix regarding some of the non-normative text for possible techniques (from jmayer's draft in particular) in the past, but a separate document sounds good too
17:17:01 <amyc> +1 cricket
17:17:03 <fielding> tlr, when an editor's draft contains a change that the WG (in this case, the vast majority of the WG) disagrees with, the right procedure is to revert that change or make it a set of alternatives prior to WD publication. That is the process that the chairs insisted *I* adhere to, so I expect the chairs and W3C staff to adhere to it as well.  If you don't, then I need to start removing references to TCS from TPE.
17:17:11 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas
17:17:13 <efelten> schunter: suggestion to have a separate section of non-normative text for each normative section
17:17:22 <schunter> q?
17:17:28 <efelten> … other opinions?
17:17:30 <npdoty> q+
17:17:52 <efelten> npdoty: is it helpful to push out a draft of that?
17:17:53 <dsinger> to Roy, I think you are overstating things somewhat
17:17:53 <schunter> to fielding: this is actually a good suggestion for the next release of the WD.
17:17:56 <efelten> … does group support it?
17:18:00 <npdoty> q-
17:18:03 <npdoty> q+ Aleecia
17:18:09 <efelten> aleecia: have been talking about doing this for a long time
17:18:09 <npdoty> ack Aleecia
17:18:22 <Zakim> -hwest
17:18:32 <efelten> … having a toggle to show/not-show the bonus non-normative text, or separate it somehow
17:18:35 <npdoty> +1 that we've been looking at alternatives for this for a while
17:18:37 <efelten> … good idea to do it
17:18:52 <efelten> schunter: seem to have consensus on doing this
17:18:53 <npdoty> (including a toggle I had implemented for a while in JavaScript)
17:19:02 <efelten> … should it be a companion document, or something else
17:19:15 <dsinger> I think the editors could make a draft "technical report" fairly readily, and we can decide then where it goes (annex, or separate document).  at least the text is not then 'lost in history'
17:19:23 <efelten> … each section can start with normative part, followed by non-normative
17:19:32 <tlr> q+
17:19:33 <efelten> … can flip a switch to hide the non-normative text
17:19:39 <efelten> … like doing this in toggle style
17:19:45 <tlr> ack thomas
17:19:51 <kulick> agreed on toggling style
17:19:52 <efelten> … easier to manage if it's one document rather than two that have to be kept in sync
17:19:54 <schunter> q?
17:19:56 <Zakim> +rachel_n_thomas
17:20:05 <Zakim> -Aleecia
17:20:06 <justin> Change proposals?
17:20:07 <npdoty> I'm not sure the toggle worked that well, since having javascript to change the content was tricky sometimes
17:20:08 <efelten> … question: how to find gold nuggets in old document to transplant into new document
17:20:08 <schunter> thomas, go ahead
17:20:29 <efelten> tlr: heard agreement that one or another of those specific plans would work
17:20:31 <schunter> I agre
17:20:32 <schunter> e
17:20:43 <tlr> zakim, mute me
17:20:43 <Zakim> Thomas should now be muted
17:20:52 <efelten> … suggest asking the editors to think about whether to use toggle or another approach
17:21:11 <efelten> schunter: good to ask editors to think about this
17:21:27 <efelten> … question: how to find nuggets in the old draft
17:21:32 <fielding> non-normative text cannot contain any requirements (no musts, shoulds, or anything more than examples)
17:22:03 <efelten> … suggest creating wiki text with same outline, ask people to copy-paste text from old document into the wiki text
17:22:23 <efelten> … copy-pasted stuff then gets considered for inclusion in new draft
17:22:24 <schunter> q?
17:22:30 <justin> +q
17:22:38 <schunter> ack just
17:22:51 <efelten> justin: june draft was proposed as simpler distillation of existing draft
17:23:09 <efelten> … all of june draft text is alternative phrasing of stuff in the old text
17:23:15 <schunter> Proposal: Empty outline of june draft as wiki and people can import essential non-normative text into this outline.
17:23:22 <efelten> … doesn't make sense to just paste old-draft text alongside the new text
17:23:25 <npdoty> except for non-normative text, right?
17:23:30 <efelten> … suggest going the issues-and-proposals route
17:23:38 <npdoty> although that might be better in a companion-style document anyway
17:23:41 <efelten> … people can propose adding old text to new doc
17:23:42 <justin> Oh, I misunderstood.
17:23:51 <efelten> … or propose replacing new text with older text
17:24:10 <efelten> schunter: this transplantation discussion is just for non-normative text
17:24:12 <schunter> q?
17:24:30 <efelten> … looking for a lightweight way to make use of non-normative text from older text
17:24:52 <efelten> … as always, non-normative text must be in sync with normative
17:25:06 <npdoty> I can create a wiki page for pulling up non-normative text that would be good for the draft going forward or for a companion non-normative document
17:25:07 <justin> I'm fine with pulling out examples from other drafts.
17:25:15 <efelten> … shouldn't just transplant non-normative text into place where it differs from governing normative text
17:25:20 <schunter> q?
17:25:49 <efelten> … aleecia, do you think this is a good approach?
17:26:00 <efelten> npdoty: aleecia had to drop off the call a few minutes ago
17:26:10 <efelten> schunter: anyone disagree with trying this?
17:26:20 <schunter> q?
17:26:28 <efelten> … ok, will try, see if it works
17:26:43 <efelten> … npdoty will create the wiki page for this purpose
17:26:47 <schunter> q?
17:26:53 <npdoty> action: doty to set up wiki page with outline for gathering non-normative text (from April WD or elsewhere)
17:26:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-428 - Set up wiki page with outline for gathering non-normative text (from april wd or elsewhere) [on Nick Doty - due 2013-09-18].
17:26:55 <efelten> … once we have the text we'll consider its consistency with normative text
17:27:02 <npdoty> action-428 due September 14
17:27:02 <trackbot> Set action-428 Set up wiki page with outline for gathering non-normative text (from april wd or elsewhere) due date to 2013-09-14.
17:27:08 <efelten> … remember timeline
17:27:15 <efelten> … by end of this week, send feedback on timeline
17:27:21 <efelten> … open the poll very soon
17:27:25 <efelten> … close poll on oct 9
17:27:33 <efelten> … issue freeze on oct 2
17:27:40 <efelten> … should have change proposals by oct 2
17:27:43 <npdoty> schunter's updated list of dates:
17:27:45 <npdoty>      September 13: Deadline for feedback on the proposed plan
17:27:45 <npdoty>      September 18 (new): Revised plan is announced
17:27:47 <npdoty>      September 18 (updated): Poll opens
17:27:48 <npdoty> October 02: Issue Freeze: Issues raised after October 02 will be
17:27:49 <npdoty> deferred to be addressed after Last Call.
17:27:50 <npdoty>       October 09: The poll closes; chairs and team assess responses.
17:27:51 <schunter> q?
17:28:29 <efelten> npdoty: poll will open on sept 18
17:28:46 <npdoty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0027.html
17:28:54 <Zakim> -SusanIsrael
17:28:54 <efelten> schunter: consult latest email for dates and deadlines
17:28:56 <Zakim> -[CDT]
17:28:56 <Zakim> -rachel_n_thomas
17:28:58 <Zakim> -laurengelman
17:29:00 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
17:29:00 <Zakim> -eberkower
17:29:00 <Zakim> -RichardWeaver
17:29:00 <Zakim> -kulick
17:29:00 <Zakim> -Joanne
17:29:00 <efelten> … thanks everybody, that's all for this week
17:29:01 <Zakim> -schunter
17:29:01 <Zakim> -Ari
17:29:01 <Zakim> -peter-4As
17:29:02 <Zakim> -Keith_Scarborough
17:29:02 <Zakim> -Thomas
17:29:03 <Zakim> -dwainberg
17:29:03 <Zakim> -Peder_Magee
17:29:03 <Zakim> -Fielding
17:29:04 <Zakim> -Lynn_Nielsen
17:29:04 <Zakim> -npdoty
17:29:05 <Zakim> -efelten
17:29:05 <Zakim> -Wendy
17:29:07 <Zakim> -adrianba
17:29:09 <Zakim> -robsherman
17:29:10 <Zakim> -Brooks
17:29:11 <Zakim> -moneill2
17:29:12 <Zakim> -[Apple]
17:29:12 <Zakim> -Amy_Colando
17:29:14 <Zakim> -JeffWilson
17:29:15 <Zakim> -Jeff
17:29:16 <npdoty> Zakim, list attendees
17:29:16 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has left #dnt
17:29:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.203.563.aaaa, +1.202.587.aabb, +1.650.465.aacc, +1.212.768.aadd, npdoty, Peder_Magee, Wendy, Chris_IAB?, +1.212.768.aaee, schunter?,
17:29:17 <Zakim> ... Keith_Scarborough, rachel_n_thomas, +1.215.286.aaff, +31.65.141.aagg, WaltMichel, Fielding, rvaneijk, +1.212.432.aahh, Thomas, eberkower, moneill2, hwest, +1.202.331.aaii,
17:29:20 <Zakim> ... +1.609.258.aajj, Lynn_Nielsen, efelten, SusanIsrael, hefferjr, Jeff, Rigo, peter-4As, RichardWeaver, Joanne, +1.646.827.aakk, +1.650.465.aall, WileyS, schunter, [CDT], dsinger,
17:29:20 <Zakim> ... +1.202.344.aamm, Chris_Pedigo, david_macmillan, kulick, Ari, zaneis, FPFJoeN, LeeTien, dwainberg, Brooks, Chapell, Aleecia, adrianba, JeffWilson, +1.650.813.aann, robsherman,
17:29:20 <Zakim> ... laurengelman, Amy_Colando
17:29:20 <Zakim> -FPFJoeN
17:29:20 <Zakim> -Chris_IAB?
17:29:26 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
17:29:30 <Zakim> -LeeTien
17:29:35 <npdoty> rrsagent, draft the minutes
17:29:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-dnt-minutes.html npdoty
17:29:41 <npdoty> rrsagent, bye
17:29:41 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-dnt-actions.rdf :
17:29:41 <RRSAgent> ACTION: doty to set up wiki page with outline for gathering non-normative text (from April WD or elsewhere) [1]
17:29:41 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-dnt-irc#T17-26-53