IRC log of dnt on 2013-10-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:46:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:46:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:46:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:46:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dnt
15:46:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:46:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
15:46:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:46:30 [trackbot]
Date: 30 October 2013
15:47:03 [npdoty]
regrets+ Justin
15:47:13 [npdoty]
chair: cargill, schunter
15:53:14 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:54:38 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
15:56:19 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:56:26 [Zakim]
15:56:43 [Zakim]
15:57:05 [Zakim]
15:57:35 [Zakim]
15:58:25 [Zakim]
15:58:59 [WaltervH]
WaltervH has joined #DNT
15:59:05 [Zakim]
15:59:06 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:59:09 [Zakim]
15:59:15 [WaltervH]
Zakim, IPcaller is WaltervH
15:59:15 [Zakim]
+WaltervH; got it
15:59:32 [Zakim]
15:59:41 [Zakim]
15:59:43 [ninja]
ninja has joined #dnt
15:59:58 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:00:00 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:00:02 [WaltervH]
Good afternoon Carl
16:00:09 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
16:00:23 [Zakim]
16:00:30 [Zakim]
16:00:33 [Zakim]
+ +49.431.988.aaaa
16:00:44 [ninja]
zakim, aaaa is ninja
16:00:44 [Zakim]
+ninja; got it
16:00:48 [Zakim]
16:00:49 [Zakim]
16:00:51 [Mike_Zaneis]
Mike_Zaneis has joined #dnt
16:00:55 [Richard_comScore]
Richard_comScore has joined #dnt
16:01:24 [Zakim]
16:01:54 [Zakim]
16:02:03 [Zakim]
16:02:14 [npdoty]
Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:02:15 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Wendy
16:02:20 [WaltMichel]
WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:02:41 [npdoty]
Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:02:41 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ninja
16:02:44 [npdoty]
Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:02:44 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Carl_Cargill
16:02:47 [npdoty]
Zakim, please choose a scribe
16:02:47 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Fielding
16:02:47 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:02:52 [Zakim]
16:02:53 [Zakim]
16:02:54 [wseltzer]
scribenick: wseltzer
16:03:00 [bryan]
bryan has joined #dnt
16:03:06 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
16:03:07 [Zakim]
16:03:10 [Zakim]
16:03:13 [Chris_IAB]
just joined the call
16:03:19 [hwest]
hwest has joined #dnt
16:03:19 [Zakim]
16:03:20 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??p49 is Chris_IAB
16:03:20 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB; got it
16:03:22 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:03:26 [wseltzer]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:03:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see rvaneijk, Wendy, npdoty, Jeff, WaltervH, dwainberg, eberkower, Carl_Cargill, Jack_Hobaugh, Amy_Colando, Mike_Zaneis, ninja, WileyS, RichardWeaver, Fielding,
16:03:29 [Zakim]
... hefferjr, moneill2, WaltMichel, kulick, Chris_IAB, RobSherman, Bryan_Sullivan
16:03:29 [Zakim]
16:03:29 [Zakim]
16:03:36 [Zakim]
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:04:08 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:04:14 [wseltzer]
16:04:17 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
16:04:22 [Zakim]
16:04:33 [Zakim]
16:04:50 [wseltzer]
-> Agenda
16:04:54 [Zakim]
16:04:58 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:04:59 [wseltzer]
wseltzer has changed the topic to:
16:05:00 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:05:07 [FPFJoeN]
FPFJoeN has joined #dnt
16:05:09 [Zakim]
16:05:29 [JC]
Let me do first 30 mins
16:05:42 [npdoty]
scribenick: JC
16:05:52 [JC]
Carl: we are now moving to agenda item 3
16:05:55 [wseltzer]
Topic: Update on evolution of TPWG plan
16:05:57 [Zakim]
16:06:11 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:06:13 [FPFJoeN]
202-587 is FPFJoeN
16:06:16 [moneill2]
who let the dogs out
16:06:17 [schunter]
Zakim, ??P60 is schunter
16:06:17 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:06:24 [JC]
Alan: I have a question
16:06:45 [FPFJoeN]
Zakim, mute me
16:06:45 [Zakim]
FPFJoeN should now be muted
16:06:51 [JC]
... It seems like we have moved from working on TPE and more like options 1 & 2
16:06:57 [fielding]
the other terms are used in the definition of tracking and in the TSR
16:07:01 [JC]
... can you explain the shift?
16:07:01 [wseltzer]
16:07:16 [JC]
Carl: We had issues 1 & 2 and 3 &4
16:07:26 [WaltervH]
you mean options?
16:07:32 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
16:07:32 [Brooks]
not sure that was 3 &4?!
16:07:45 [jeff]
I believe Carl means Options
16:07:45 [JC]
... the chairs and staff felt that we want to get something out that is useful
16:07:51 [jeff]
Option 3 was TPE first
16:07:51 [Zakim]
16:07:52 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:07:53 [Zakim]
16:07:57 [jeff]
Option 4 was TPE only
16:08:00 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:08:04 [JC]
... we also want to include the sense of the group that included some parts of compliance
16:08:04 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has me
16:08:04 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
16:08:05 [eberkower]
Zakim, mute me please
16:08:06 [Zakim]
eberkower should now be muted
16:08:06 [Zakim]
16:08:08 [Brooks]
16:08:10 [jeff]
16:08:22 [JC]
... we want to have a TPE that is implementable and not just a vacuous spec
16:08:54 [JC]
Alan: Is it the chairs position that working on the TPE with a tracking definition was not workable?
16:09:06 [JC]
Carl: That was not discussed in the fianal options
16:09:07 [jeff]
16:09:11 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
16:09:18 [WaltervH]
16:09:26 [JC]
... we thought about which definitions would be necessary for the TPE to be useful
16:09:40 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:09:48 [johnsimpson]
16:09:48 [JC]
... unfortnately we felt we would know it when we got there
16:10:01 [PM_3538]
PM_3538 has joined #dnt
16:10:09 [mecallahan]
mecallahan has joined #dnt
16:10:17 [Zakim]
16:10:21 [JC]
Matthias: We felt it would be weird to talk about tracking all the time without knowing what it is
16:10:24 [Zakim]
16:10:43 [JC]
... we decided to keep some defnitions from compliance to make the TPE self-contained
16:10:50 [dwainberg]
16:10:57 [WaltervH]
16:11:07 [JC]
... there are several places in the TPE that rely on compliance definitions and we want to remove those dependencies
16:11:19 [schunter]
16:11:23 [Chapell]
16:11:50 [JC]
Heather: Ian was expressing that we should make sure we are creating something simple enough to implement as a 1.0
16:12:19 [JC]
Chris: I see what you are trying to do, but I don't see where you draw the line
16:12:35 [Zakim]
16:12:43 [JC]
... if you add the definitions into the TPE then you are really merging it with the compliance spec
16:12:56 [Chapell]
This is the decision of the chairs and w3C staff, not necessarily the intent of the working group.
16:13:03 [JC]
... I feel that will unnecessarily hamstring orgs that want to do compliance in different ways
16:13:06 [wseltzer]
16:13:12 [WaltervH]
16:13:33 [moneill2]
or the server
16:13:33 [JC]
... I would prefer that we point to a compliance spec and the browser can point to it
16:13:43 [JC]
Browser or website?
16:13:44 [fielding]
Can we please phrase these comments as suggestions to the editor on what to include in a first attempt, rather than stop action based on unknown concerns?
16:13:56 [JC]
Carl: In general, that is what we are trying to do
16:13:57 [WaltervH]
fielding: +1
16:14:25 [JC]
... Roy point of view is that we are putting content in that will make the TPE a viable spec
16:14:34 [wseltzer]
16:14:57 [JC]
Matthias: Our goal is not to create a TPE that will work with random compliance specs
16:15:09 [WaltervH]
16:15:10 [npdoty]
I think it may actually be a separate question about whether the documents themselves are combined, and more prioritizing issues for Last Call for implementation and review of TPE first
16:15:13 [JC]
... we plan to continue work on Compliance spec after completion of TPE
16:15:25 [vinay]
How will companies test the TPE without a compliance spec / compliance regime?
16:15:30 [JC]
Chris: I'm concerned about the breadth of the TPE
16:15:36 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:15:36 [WileyS]
Matthias - I disagree as then we end up not separating the issues with the compliance spec. By drawing in the defintions into the TPE you're completely missing the point of Option 3
16:15:43 [JC]
Brooks: I am going to agree with others
16:16:07 [moneill2]
16:16:12 [JC]
... if service provider becomes a definition in the TPE then it becomes more like the compliance spec
16:16:39 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:16:42 [Zakim]
16:16:45 [schunter]
16:16:50 [JC]
... I understand that we need to define some things, but it may make it impossible without defining the compliance doc
16:16:52 [schunter]
16:16:56 [hefferjr]
hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:16:56 [npdoty]
ack Chapell
16:16:59 [wseltzer]
q+ dwainberg
16:17:01 [dwainberg]
i got disconnected
16:17:09 [JC]
Alan: What I am hearing is that the TPE cannot be completed without X number of terms.
16:17:15 [Zakim]
16:17:16 [Joanne]
Joanne has joined #DNT
16:17:18 [Brooks]
16:17:23 [WileyS]
The point of Option 3 in the Poll was to completely separate the TPE from the Compliance Spec and allow the TPE moving forward without those issues in contention.
16:17:23 [JC]
... Is that was the assumption why wasn't that an option on the poll
16:17:26 [dwainberg]
thanks, Wendy
16:17:37 [Chris_IAB]
dwainberg is back
16:17:43 [Brooks]
If TPE only wasn't a viable option, it shouldn'
16:17:51 [Zakim]
16:17:51 [JC]
Carl: That sort of developed after a two-hour discussion. It didn't seem like a poll able question at the time.
16:17:52 [Brooks]
t have been listed in the poll
16:17:58 [Mike_Zaneis]
16:17:58 [WileyS]
Carl - you're hearing the Working Group disagrees with your "consensus" between co-chairs
16:18:11 [Zakim]
16:18:26 [JC]
... we are trying to adopt what the group has said and we feel we need to move some definitions over to have a viable spec
16:18:35 [JC]
... we don't want to have a meaningless TPE
16:18:45 [Zakim]
16:18:48 [Zakim]
16:18:51 [WileyS]
Carl - Who determines "valid", "neutered", or "incomplete" in this context?
16:18:52 [Zakim]
16:18:54 [JC]
... at some level we are winging it. We want to find a way forward that works.
16:19:18 [JC]
... we are trying to get through this as quickly as we can
16:19:21 [npdoty]
the options for the poll itself were briefly described, but comments in poll responses and in our call dedicated to discussing the poll, the group discussed issues to prioritize for TPE to go to Last Call
16:19:34 [johnsimpson]
16:19:38 [wseltzer]
ack dwainberg
16:19:51 [JC]
David: Firstly, I want to echo Ian's comments from the list
16:20:11 [JC]
... removing parts of TPE that are not useful would be good
16:20:30 [JC]
... the sensible approach would be to remove parts of TPE that don't stand on their own
16:20:41 [JC]
... then we should look at which definitions that we need
16:21:17 [JC]
... We are continuing on the same path to complete the compliance doc and we are going to debate defnitions that we have for years
16:21:33 [JC]
... I don't think that will work and produce an unaccpetable outcome
16:21:55 [JC]
... I believe the will of the group is to focous on the TPE, removing unneeded items
16:22:07 [JC]
... At the end we can look at definintions needed
16:22:26 [JC]
Roy: We have gone down the path of not defining things and that can't continue
16:22:34 [ninja]
dwainberg, how can the TPE spec be an entirely new context?
16:22:46 [JC]
... we can't continue functioning without them
16:23:09 [JC]
... I need to know what I am writing. So give me a chance to include things to define the protocol
16:23:24 [JC]
... After the first draft we can remove unneded items.
16:23:42 [JC]
... we don't need to decide today. Let me finish the document first
16:23:43 [wseltzer]
16:23:53 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:24:15 [JC]
Walter: I support the idea of completing the TPE first, but we don't have to have all definintions
16:24:33 [JC]
... industry hammered on the need for a tracking definition
16:24:50 [JC]
... now that we won't have a compliance spec then we must have a tracking definition
16:25:03 [JC]
... I don't agree with supporting a number of compliance specs
16:25:10 [ninja]
16:25:25 [JC]
... I can see an industry spec having more permitted uses
16:25:44 [JC]
... I don't think you can have a sensible TPE if there are different expectations of what tracking means
16:25:53 [matt]
matt has joined #dnt
16:25:55 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:26:03 [Zakim]
16:26:14 [JC]
Matthias: I want to emphasize that we don't want to create a Compliance spec through the back door
16:26:28 [JC]
... we can't create a TPE with empty spaces
16:26:39 [WaltervH]
JC: I actually support having multiple compliance specs
16:26:54 [JC]
... we can build a protocal with all the pieces well defined.
16:26:58 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:27:03 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:27:09 [JC]
Walter: I actually support multiple compliance specs
16:27:22 [JC]
Mike: I see David's points.
16:27:46 [JC]
... We have had the expectation that we will have a TPE and Compliance spec
16:28:20 [JC]
... I think we should start by defining tracking
16:28:39 [JC]
... if that is going to be in the TPE then we should recognize that this is a new process
16:29:06 [JC]
... what we have now from today forward is potentially a different document from the original TPE
16:29:21 [JC]
... my discomformt comes from truncated deadlines.
16:29:36 [JC]
... the change in process and scope should be recognized
16:29:39 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:29:40 [npdoty]
16:29:43 [JC]
I need to drop off
16:29:45 [JC]
16:29:53 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
16:30:02 [johnsimpson]
16:30:07 [Zakim]
16:30:08 [susanisrael]
npdoty, do you want me to scribe for a bit
16:30:20 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
16:30:28 [dwainberg]
but that's compliance
16:30:42 [WaltervH]
ninja: +1!
16:30:44 [susanisrael]
16:30:45 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:30:50 [Chris_IAB]
we have that today and people are saying it works fine (I agree that assertion that it works is questionable)
16:30:58 [dwainberg]
what I heard there is that we need a mini compliance spec in the standalone TPE
16:31:03 [dwainberg]
I disagree
16:31:05 [ninja]
npdoty, sure I write it down myself
16:31:13 [susanisrael]
npdoty, i will scribe after i speak
16:31:15 [jeff]
Mike, fwiw, I'm not sure what the alternative is to "truncated deadlines". The WG has spent weeks debating Issue 5? what approach would you take to resolve it?
16:31:18 [Chris_IAB]
browsers are implementing today without any agreed upon definitions
16:31:19 [wseltzer]
scribenick: wseltzer
16:31:45 [Chris_IAB]
so the notion that we can't test without definitions seems silly
16:31:51 [rvaneijk]
+1 Nick
16:31:56 [wseltzer]
npdoty: poll option 3, do TPE first, is roughly what the chairs are suggesting
16:31:58 [WaltervH]
Chris_IAB: that is not the notion
16:32:00 [Zakim]
16:32:19 [Chris_IAB]
WaltervH, that's one thing I have heard today
16:32:26 [wseltzer]
... input from the group seemed to be TPE-first, so going through necessary subset of issues
16:32:30 [Chris_IAB]
but please, correct me if I am wrong
16:33:03 [wseltzer]
susanisrael: if we incorporate definition of tracking in order to set user expectations, we have to be clear that there will always be some of what a user might consider "tracking"
16:33:05 [WileyS]
If we feel definitions follow a compliance regime and we offer up the ability to map to different compliance regimes in the TPE then the definitions are tied to what the Server replies with that its compliance regime is.
16:33:20 [wseltzer]
... e.g. security and fraud. Need to be clear to refer to permitted uses so as not to mislead
16:33:24 [wseltzer]
16:33:27 [susanisrael]
npdoty: I can scribe
16:33:28 [wseltzer]
ack susanisrael
16:33:30 [WileyS]
16:33:34 [npdoty]
scribenick: susanisrael
16:33:40 [WileyS]
Apologies - thought I was already in queue
16:33:48 [susanisrael]
cargill: not sure i can summarize all i have heard...
16:33:52 [ninja]
I am surprised about the counter arguments on including definitions in the TPE spec. In my view the TPE spec without any basic definitions or semantics on what the DNT:0 and DNT:1 signals shall mean in regards to tracking is pretty useless. We should not put even more confusion upon the user to choose their compliance regime to define what tracking in their signal does mean.
16:33:56 [npdoty]
ack WileyS
16:34:03 [npdoty]
Zakim, please close the queue
16:34:03 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is closed
16:34:10 [Chris_IAB]
my point is, we have a test of the TPE today, in market, without definitions in a TPE... so why can't we study that, finish up the TPE, and THEN work on the compliance spec (based on learnings)
16:34:36 [susanisrael]
wileys: trying to reconcile roy's view that definitions are required, and the idea that bringing in definitions are a back door to bring in compliance
16:35:13 [susanisrael]
....propose variable definitions, that would support multiple compliance regimes
16:35:15 [npdoty]
we often have early implementations even before we have a draft; Last Call is a milestone to allow more implementation testing
16:35:21 [susanisrael]
...this is a path forward to meet in the middle
16:35:26 [jeff]
16:36:18 [WileyS]
Ninja, confusion already exists for users.
16:36:18 [susanisrael]
jeff: this notion of being open to alternate compliance regimes is already part of the chairs' plan. notion is to discuss/debate that in the next few weeks. W3C believes we need a unified standard....
16:36:51 [susanisrael]
chairs agree with this but we also point out that we could include a field that would indicate compliance with an alternative regime. Need to consider that kind of flexibility
16:37:34 [WileyS]
HL7 (Health Level 7) - the core medical standards system allows for variable definitions. Too bad the W3C couldn't figure it out by many others have
16:37:51 [ninja]
WileyS, if this way forward leads to competing compliance regimes, at least the scope of what the users are signaling should be clear. And this relies on a clear definition of tracking.
16:37:56 [susanisrael]
cargill: story based on standards experienced. look at open ....[ didn't hear] example of a complex spec that wasn't adopted. we don't want to waste time and money on something that doesn't work
16:38:10 [susanisrael]
cargill: this is either a radical departure or more of same....
16:38:11 [npdoty]
Zakim, please open the queue
16:38:11 [Zakim]
ok, npdoty, the speaker queue is open
16:38:15 [Chris_IAB]
WileyS, I think your idea is worth pursuing further to see if it could work
16:38:20 [wseltzer]
s/open .../Open Systems Interconnect (OSI)/
16:38:24 [WaltervH]
WileyS: most health professionals I know start foaming at the mouth as soon as you bring up HL7
16:38:34 [susanisrael]
...I think matthias has first item in TPE, issue 5
16:38:36 [npdoty]
Topic: Issue-5
16:38:57 [susanisrael]
...I told people we now have 8 or more proposals, highlight one to go to consensus with....
16:38:59 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:38:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see rvaneijk, Wendy, npdoty, Jeff, WaltervH, eberkower (muted), Carl_Cargill, Jack_Hobaugh, Amy_Colando, Mike_Zaneis, ninja, WileyS, RichardWeaver, Fielding,
16:39:02 [Zakim]
... hefferjr, moneill2, WaltMichel, Chris_IAB, RobSherman, Bryan_Sullivan, Brooks, [Adobe], Chris_Pedigo, Chapell, schunter, Peder_Magee, FPFJoeN (muted), SusanIsrael, [Mozilla],
16:39:02 [Zakim]
... [FTC], MECallahan, johnsimpson, LeeTien, dwainberg, Joanne, kulick, MattHayes
16:39:02 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:39:04 [Chris_IAB]
WAIT, so that's it? We are moving forward as stated in Carl's email yesterday? Done, period, that's it?
16:39:06 [Brooks]
It is difficult to know how meaningful debate over alternatives will be when one of those alternatives has already been definitely closed by comments by the chairs
16:39:07 [WileyS]
Walter - it is admittedly a beast but that's where I cut my standards teeth nearly 2 decades ago and while its riddled with issues its an awesome standard that allows 100s of thousands of system to interoperate.
16:39:11 [susanisrael]
so we had one, but now 2.....
16:39:37 [JackHobaugh]
Matthias, please also add proposal 2 to the list for Issue - 5
16:39:37 [WaltervH]
WileyS: well, that bit of info explains a lot ;-)
16:39:40 [WileyS]
16:39:57 [wseltzer]
16:40:10 [susanisrael]
....from my perspective, I asked Dsinger if we could make roy's defintion good enough to satisfy his requirements. david is traveling, but if he sees way to reconcile, I will send around his proposal to reconcile...
16:40:18 [WileyS]
All large, complex standards have issues - any lack of understanding of this explains alot as well
16:40:37 [JackHobaugh]
16:40:38 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh, to confirm, you'd like to consider the No definition option for the definition of tracking issue?
16:40:50 [jeff]
Chris, I would say to first order you are correct, that we are proceeding with the plan; but Carl also said that the Chairs would review the input at the Chairs call today.
16:40:51 [WaltervH]
WileyS: let's aim for this standard not to be large and complex, shall we?
16:40:53 [schunter]
16:40:54 [johnsimpson]
16:40:56 [wseltzer]
ack next
16:40:56 [npdoty]
16:40:56 [susanisrael]
...if david and roy are unable to merge their definitions we will go to CFO with 2 definitions......will tell announce list what we do
16:40:58 [schunter]
ack Jack
16:41:08 [WileyS]
+1 to Jack
16:41:18 [susanisrael]
jackhobaugh: I would like to see proposal 2, no definition of tracking kept as a proposal
16:41:22 [WileyS]
Matthias - we did say that on the list!!!
16:41:28 [susanisrael]
matthias: why didn't you say so on list?
16:41:42 [susanisrael]
jackhobaugh: may have missed it apologies...
16:41:45 [johnsimpson]
I thought all proposals on the wiki were under consideration
16:42:03 [susanisrael]
matthias: i think jack is right, but want to caution everyone to look at email, especially mine.....
16:42:24 [susanisrael]
....will go to CFO with 2 or 3 definitions.
16:42:34 [susanisrael]
cargill: cfo due when?
16:42:37 [npdoty]
16:42:48 [susanisrael]
matthias: 2 weeks. npdoty pls edit wiki
16:42:59 [npdoty]
note to nick: add No Definition to proposals list
16:42:59 [schunter]
ack nick
16:43:02 [schunter]
ack np
16:43:22 [fielding]
npdoty, and candidate B should have a different heading title
16:43:38 [susanisrael]
npdoty: i want to check something that is implicit....there were a few definitions in wiki that seem similar--3,4, and 7....
16:44:02 [rvaneijk]
16:44:16 [susanisrael]
matthias: i asked if they insist on 5 different flavors of same thing, so I now want to have 3 options, no definitions, a, and b...and they did not object.
16:44:17 [moneill2]
16:44:17 [wseltzer]
so those have been consolidated to Candidates A and B
16:44:20 [schunter]
16:44:29 [schunter]
ack rv
16:45:04 [susanisrael]
rvaneijk: i was in a side conversation but followed conversation between david and mike and understood that my text of non-normative language made sense. Can we include in proposal b?
16:45:21 [kj_]
kj_ has joined #dnt
16:45:23 [npdoty]
I think using the single option (of 3, 4, 7) is good, just wanted to check while some of us were on the phone that we're set on that
16:45:27 [susanisrael]
matthias: would like to focus on normative text first, then can turn to non-normative text to explain and illustrate
16:45:30 [dwainberg]
16:45:49 [fielding]
no, that normative text has very little to do with tracking
16:46:03 [fielding]
16:46:09 [susanisrael]
rvaneijk: defintion a, last lines, includes an assumption that could be read in a non-normative way. Maybe that should be removed.
16:46:38 [susanisrael]
matthias: good point that there is non normative language in a, I will look at it and come back
16:46:50 [fielding]
That is a list of dependencies to explain to folks here -- the definition is what we are proposing.
16:46:54 [schunter]
16:46:58 [schunter]
ack m
16:47:01 [susanisrael]
matthias: i think i also got a minor edit from moneill
16:47:23 [susanisrael]
moneill: i said off-list that we say assume, instead of recognize
16:47:43 [npdoty]
if dsinger and moneill are agreed, I'm changing recognizes/assumes while I have the wiki edit page open
16:47:51 [susanisrael]
...there has been a bit of discussion between david me and rob that might be handled in non-normative text
16:48:06 [dwainberg]
16:48:08 [fielding]
The dependencies are dependencies on understanding the definition, which means that if the assumption becomes false then it is new information to reconsider the definition.
16:48:28 [susanisrael]
cargill: did you just roll your proposal into option b?
16:48:44 [susanisrael]
matthias: i think mike does not have a separate proposal, just an edit
16:49:05 [susanisrael]
....any problem with augmenting option b with rob's non-normative text
16:49:19 [JC]
JC has joined #DNT
16:49:36 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: it's impossible to keep track of conversations. so is non-normative text part of definition?
16:49:45 [Zakim]
16:49:46 [susanisrael]
matthias: will discuss with david and rob
16:49:55 [robsherman]
16:50:16 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: i object to the additional text. It's a mini-statement of compliance. It's not relevant to the definition of tracking.
16:50:24 [susanisrael]
cargill: can you bring that up in cfo
16:50:27 [Chris_IAB]
Can we let David finish?
16:50:54 [moneill2]
16:51:05 [Chapell]
+1 to dwainberg - I might support that definition, minus the additional text
16:51:10 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: but we're narrowing choices, and none may be satisfactory. I don't know how this happened. I thought we were discussing a list of definitions to be negotiated. Not sure how we got down to 2.
16:51:56 [susanisrael]
matthias: so a week or so ago i asked people which definitions of the 8 or 9 should be nominated for the CFO, then I created a short list based on nominations by the group
16:52:07 [fielding]
16:52:09 [Chapell]
If we want to add RVE's language to that definition as a SEPERATE proposal, that makes more sense. As the additional text materially changes the definition
16:52:14 [susanisrael]
...david, roy and now Jack have nominated definitions.
16:52:23 [npdoty]
I think we currently have 3 candidates, which represent the major options in the longer list of proposals (with a few merged)
16:52:35 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: are we editing these proposals as we move them into the short list?
16:52:52 [susanisrael]
fielding: yes, if you don't like them propose one of your own
16:53:02 [Chris_IAB]
+1 to deainberg 's point
16:53:03 [susanisrael]
matthias: yes, or edit.....
16:53:26 [susanisrael]
matthias: would like to find a good definition that covers a large segment of the group
16:53:57 [susanisrael]
matthias: don't want to have to consider defintions that might cover only 10 % of defintions
16:54:22 [jeff]
16:54:36 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: i can't keep up with the process changes. We keep moving goalposts. And my company is one that will be really affected by the changes....
16:54:46 [Chris_IAB]
you can fix it by slowing down, and being clear about process
16:55:06 [Zakim]
16:55:07 [johnsimpson]
16:55:07 [jeff]
[Jeff suggests to Matthias that we be willing to go to CfO with more options if that helps. Perhaps we cannot achieve narrowing in this case.]
16:55:13 [susanisrael]
cargill: can't fix that. you are asking us to fix a problem that you have, common across all standards groups. no one has unlimited time.
16:55:14 [jeff]
16:55:51 [jeff]
16:56:01 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: i am trying to contribute and be productive. Could we focus on one thing at a time, therre are multiple threads going on at once. Could we stop everything else if we are trying to define tracking:?
16:56:06 [fielding]
16:56:14 [Chapell]
+1 to Jeff's approach. otherwise, we run the risk of having a last minute amendment that completely changes an otherwise acceptable definition
16:56:19 [Chris_IAB]
agree with dwainberg that we should dedicate time to core topics and not try to shove too much down the pipe just to finish
16:56:28 [wseltzer]
16:56:34 [susanisrael]
....let's have a thorough discussion and make sure we get a good result. I can't follow 12 threads of process going on at the same time.
16:56:43 [susanisrael]
cargill: all have that problem. Trying to do that right now.
16:56:45 [Zakim]
16:56:46 [Chris_IAB]
is Carl not on IRC?
16:56:52 [johnsimpson]
16:56:52 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: but we are rushing it...
16:56:59 [wseltzer]
Chris_IAB, I believe not
16:57:20 [Brooks]
More importantly, if we thought we were choosing between 5 paths then don't go forward with plan #6. No one has time to make those adjustments.
16:57:29 [susanisrael]
jeff: i think part of the problem and confusion is that we have been attempting to get cfo to small number of proposals but it sounds like on this issue there are nuances that are important to people....
16:57:43 [Chris_IAB]
wseltzer, Jeff, how is it acceptable that we have a Chair who is consistently not on the IRC and following the discussion there??
16:58:09 [WaltervH]
Chris_IAB: my understanding is that Carl is indeed not on IRC. I don't really understand why not.
16:58:11 [susanisrael]
so on this if the working group wants to have 7 or 8 proposals, let's do that even if it's more work for the group. People are not satisfied with pseudo-consensus....
16:58:15 [fielding]
I agree with Jeff -- a call for objections does not limit anyone to a single choice
16:58:18 [jeff]
Chris, that is a fair point that I will raise offline with the Chairs.
16:58:23 [johnsimpson]
16:58:27 [schunter]
16:58:29 [npdoty]
ack dwainberg
16:58:29 [jeff]
16:58:30 [Chris_IAB]
WaltervH, that seems absolutely nutso to me
16:58:30 [npdoty]
ack jeff
16:58:35 [schunter]
ack rob
16:58:35 [npdoty]
ack robsherman
16:58:39 [susanisrael]
matthias: will discuss in chair's call and I will come back to issue 10. Queue first.
16:59:06 [WaltervH]
Chris_IAB: my preferred term would be 'undesirable'
16:59:28 [susanisrael]
robsherman: I think part of challenge is that there are many side discussions, and people are having trouble understanding the impact of proposals, so besides jeff's objectiions, let's make sure...
16:59:29 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, Carl is acting the roll of "enforcer" on these calls, while we all choke it down, and he's only informed by PART of the entire conversation (by not being on IRC)
16:59:58 [Chris_IAB]
WaltervH, fair enough-- but I think it's nuts
17:00:09 [susanisrael]
...people know what's on the table and what will be subject of call for objections....i see new things in the 2 proposals that I have not yet been able to fully appreciate the impact of. Need to give people time (a week?) to think through it.
17:00:14 [Mike_Zaneis]
+1 to Rob about process
17:00:28 [npdoty]
that Roy's definition uses "contexts" has been in discussion for the past month, right?
17:00:28 [susanisrael]
matthias: good point. But I think i said ...
17:00:39 [susanisrael]
sisrael: +1 to rob
17:00:58 [susanisrael]
matthias: my challenge is to know when to call "stop" for objections
17:01:00 [WaltervH]
npdoty: I do recall the term contexts being used over a year ago during various conversations
17:01:12 [schunter]
17:01:23 [susanisrael]
correction for mathias--need to know when to call stop for discussion.....
17:01:30 [wseltzer]
ack next
17:01:30 [npdoty]
WaltervH, yes, "contexts" has been a part of discussion for years, I was just referring to this definition and text in particular
17:01:58 [rvaneijk]
+1 Mike
17:02:07 [susanisrael]
moneill: i think it's a good exercise to have a small number of things to focus on. I don't think we should open it up and have loads of choices. Need to make sure it gets right attention.
17:02:09 [Zakim]
17:02:23 [susanisrael]
matthias: so you are saying don't kill this process by going straight to cfo
17:02:29 [ninja]
+1 to Mike
17:02:42 [susanisrael]
moneill: yes, let's have a few more days because we're getting somewhere
17:03:02 [schunter]
17:03:05 [susanisrael]
matthias: so having a few worked out alternatives to choose from?
17:03:18 [jeff_]
jeff_ has joined #dnt
17:03:38 [wseltzer]
17:03:39 [npdoty]
topic: issue-10
17:03:50 [susanisrael]
matthias: next issue is issue 10. with issue 10, there were a bunch of maintenance changes that I would like to serve as a starting point for this discussion.
17:04:11 [dwainberg]
17:04:15 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
17:04:25 [schunter]
17:04:26 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dwainberg (3%), RichardWeaver (4%), schunter (10%)
17:04:27 [susanisrael]
matthias: would like to have comments on the text
17:04:29 [schunter]
ack d
17:04:38 [JackHobaugh]
Regarding Process: Everything that was done over the last three weeks was done without the TPWG knowing what path it was on. And from the poll results, the path appeared to be confined to Options 3 or 4. It is reasonable to expect that during the last three weeks, the conversation was biased by a focus on options 3 and 4. It was only yesterday that Carl announced the path forward. And the path forward now is neither Option 3 or 4 but instead appears to be a
17:04:38 [JackHobaugh]
mixture of Options 1 and 3 with perhaps even option 2 mixed in.
17:04:40 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: why are we defining party?
17:05:25 [Chris_IAB]
+1 to JackHobaugh
17:05:27 [susanisrael]
.....may not be a dependency for the TPE.
17:05:30 [schunter]
17:05:33 [jeff_]
Jack, in my view, the Chairs' path is closest to Option3. Once they decided to do TPE first, they decided that some items needed to be added to TPE to make it self-contained.
17:05:58 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, no way is that Option 3.
17:06:06 [susanisrael]
matthias: we can indicate where things are used in first and third party context, so still need idea of first and third parties.
17:06:14 [Zakim]
17:06:40 [jeff_]
Chris, well it is certainly (a variation of) TPE first.
17:06:45 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: may need to define those contexts, but to ian's point, there are things in here that are specific to a particular compliance approach.
17:06:49 [johnsimpson]
17:06:52 [Chapell]
jeff, you may see it as option 3, but please understand that many wg members believe that we're significantly closer to options 1 & 2
17:06:54 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, it's something that wasn't on the poll, and we are just being told, this is how we will move now... I don't think you have consensus on this NEW "plan forward"-- sorry
17:07:02 [susanisrael]
matthias: we have to define third party for compliance coming later.
17:07:34 [susanisrael]
dwainberg: but we don't need it for the tpe. and we may not need it for tpe. May instead focus on context and not need to define parties, saving some time.
17:07:43 [schunter]
17:07:45 [susanisrael]
matthias: other inputs
17:07:46 [npdoty]
TPE refers to parties -- communicating a tracking status has "1" and "3", for example
17:07:47 [WaltervH]
17:07:53 [schunter]
ack Wal
17:08:06 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff, it is not a variation of TPE first... it is a MERGER of TPE and some parts of the Compliance spec, which is not one, then the other.
17:08:07 [jeff_]
Chris, it is clear that no single proposal will have full agreement. The Chairs' view is that this is closest to a consensus of all the input they received.
17:08:08 [susanisrael]
waltervH: i can see david's reasoning.
17:08:09 [Chapell]
is there a link to the text that we're currently discussing? Issue 10?
17:08:32 [npdoty]
17:08:32 [trackbot]
issue-10 -- What is a first party? -- open
17:08:32 [trackbot]
17:08:33 [npdoty]
17:08:50 [dwainberg]
alan, Matthias sent an email this morning
17:09:01 [npdoty]
17:09:03 [susanisrael]
....actually there are [?] mechanisms for party to share in TPE . May still need to retain references for parties for both tpe and compliance spec to have a record of which parties/entities have data.
17:09:07 [schunter]
17:09:10 [susanisrael]
...and what can be expected from them.
17:09:20 [susanisrael]
matthias: any comments on the text I sent
17:09:51 [schunter]
17:09:52 [ninja]
17:09:53 [moneill2]
17:09:58 [schunter]
ack nn
17:10:00 [Chapell]
17:10:01 [susanisrael]
matthias: heard from david we should postpone to compliance spec but is there actually any comment on the text?
17:10:01 [schunter]
ack nin
17:10:04 [JackHobaugh]
Respectfully Jeff, it is not TPE first, it is "prioritize getting the TPE out to last call." This language gives the chairs room to continue, as they have, with issues against the compliance spec.
17:10:51 [jeff_]
Jack, I agree that TPE first (Option 3) means getting TPE to Last Call, first.
17:10:52 [susanisrael]
ninja: "Party...." [reads schunter def]...i think we had a discussion about whether we need to have a common privacy regime as well as common owner
17:11:23 [WaltervH]
ninja: you broke up a lot
17:11:23 [susanisrael]
i don't think we had an ongoing discussion about a common privacy regime. that was merely part of an alternative proposed by dwainberg
17:11:34 [susanisrael]
ninja: i would require this from all parties
17:11:42 [schunter]
17:11:47 [npdoty]
JackHobaugh, jeff, Option 3 in the poll specified that each specification could go to Last Call at its own pace, and there was support for TPE moving to Last Call earlier
17:11:48 [schunter]
ack mon
17:11:53 [susanisrael]
matthias: so if 2 affiliates do not have common privacy regime they would be 2 parties?
17:11:55 [susanisrael]
ninja: yes
17:12:02 [Zakim]
17:12:14 [susanisrael]
moneill: are we talking about email about service provider? or what's on wiki?
17:12:29 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, but nothing in the poll called for moving certain compliance bits into the TPE
17:12:34 [susanisrael]
...need to define service provider if it becomes part of definition of parties.
17:12:43 [npdoty]
ninja, is there a text proposal for that? there might be some similarities in Alan's proposal (about multiple companies acting as a single party if they have consistent privacy language)
17:12:55 [susanisrael]
matthias: what i sent around by email. I think it was part of third party definitions
17:13:01 [johnsimpson]
Very difficult to discuss text that was received at 6 am PT...
17:13:04 [ninja]
Sorry, phone bridge is bad today. Wanted to bring up again the issue whether a common party needs to have a common owner PLUS a common privacy regime.
17:13:04 [Chapell]
17:13:34 [WileyS]
Ninja - we support common ownership and common (exactly the same) privacy regime
17:13:53 [susanisrael]
moneill: problem is that this is too vague unless there is contract between user and service provider
17:13:54 [Brooks]
again scope creep. we need more and more definitions in the TPE
17:14:08 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, but I suppose we understand why, per Carl's submission earlier today, "We are just winging it" (no kidding!)
17:14:29 [susanisrael]
moneill, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that user would have to have contract with service provider. That would NEVER happen but there are service providers, who have a distinct status
17:14:57 [susanisrael]
matthias: roy do you have an opinion on use of service provider in third party defintion
17:14:59 [schunter]
Third Party (from (5):) For any data collected as a result of one or more network interactions resulting from a user's action, a third party is any party other than that user, a first party for that user action, or a service provider acting on behalf of either that user or that first party
17:15:19 [susanisrael]
fielding: we have an issue for service provider definition, not sure what we're discussing or why
17:15:55 [susanisrael]
matthias: just put in irc. mike raises point that we need definition, and you are right that we have an issue, so if we address that it should be settled.
17:16:00 [schunter]
17:16:10 [susanisrael]
fielding: clearly the intent is that this should be a defined term.
17:16:14 [schunter]
17:16:35 [susanisrael]
matthias: so i am noting that some terms still need defining, like service provider.
17:16:55 [schunter]
17:17:06 [susanisrael]
matthias: will see if people are ok with this definition or no definition is preferable, but so far no one has done so.
17:17:14 [johnsimpson]
How does this to be a candidate when we've had three hours to look at before the call??
17:17:18 [susanisrael]
matthias: ending discussion on issue 10. Next is issue 16.
17:17:31 [wseltzer]
Topic: Issue 16
17:17:31 [WaltervH]
rigo: I think W3C shoult look into using AT4AM for processes like this
17:17:46 [JackHobaugh]
To be clear the title for option three is: "Finalise TPE first and then finalise Compliance" and the clarification wording is: "While each specification could go to Last Call at its own pace, Candidate Recommendations for both documents would be published jointly, and the two would proceed further together." It is clear the intent of option 3 was to complete the TPE first and then the Compliance doc. It is only once we get to CR that both would continue in
17:17:46 [fielding]
17:17:46 [trackbot]
issue-16 -- What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data? -- open
17:17:46 [trackbot]
17:17:47 [JackHobaugh]
17:17:54 [schunter]
You will have more time. Note that the text was a consolidation of texts on the wiki for issue 10 that have been there for a while.
17:17:57 [susanisrael]
cargill: let me take 16 quickly, since there has been comment. this is one where we are close to closure. I would like to take time to introduce parts of it. we are dealing with what it means to collect....
17:18:08 [schunter]
I did not create new text... (at least not conciously)
17:18:11 [fielding]
17:18:30 [susanisrael]
.....retain and share data. there has been a lot on list, and I'd like to introduce that. Vinay can you discuss?
17:19:06 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff_, Chairs, I think dwainberg raised a very fair point today: there are some folks on these calls from industry that have limited time, due to their day jobs (running their business), to focus full time on this spec, and yet, those people are arguably most affected by these specs. The group should adjust for that reality, so it is not construed as being one-sided and railroading the affected.
17:19:11 [susanisrael]
vinay: david, lee and i have discussed and are near merging, 3 change proposals for definition of collect. Not sure whether still wants to keep his for retain. I think lee has one for uses.
17:19:34 [susanisrael] question from chairs is whether we still need to worry about old change proposal from jmayer.
17:19:47 [susanisrael]
cargill: is it incorporated in any of these other proposals?
17:19:49 [npdoty]
is jmayer's text significantly different anyway? it looks very similar to Lee's and Vinay's.
17:20:06 [kulick]
looks like Lee Tien's proposal captures it
17:20:07 [susanisrael]
cargill: has anyone looked at it seriously?
17:20:16 [WaltervH]
kulick: the editor's draft is pretty good too
17:20:20 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff_, Chairs, it should also be noted that for others, this is their full-time job, and thus they have the time necessary to influence the spec work to satisfy their positions and constituencies.
17:20:25 [susanisrael]
vinay: i personally think it is included in the proposal we are considering.
17:20:33 [johnsimpson]
17:20:54 [WaltervH]
kulick: there's some parts of Lee's definition that are better and the other way around
17:20:57 [susanisrael]
lee: yes, I agree with vinay about where we are. I do not recall what jmayer proposal vinay is talking about. I can't be sure.
17:21:28 [susanisrael]
cargill: so could you, vinay and david incorporate what we think was the intent of jmayer's proposal.
17:21:32 [susanisrael]
lee: sounds do-able.
17:21:57 [Chris_IAB]
Vinay, which Chris?
17:21:58 [fielding]
We need to update the wiki so that the proposals represent complete replacements for the existing definitions -- it is too hard to read them as is
17:22:05 [johnsimpson]
17:22:08 [susanisrael]
vinay: yes, we can do that. some work still needs to be done re: definition of share. I owe chris a response. will also work with amy who has a defintion of share. ....
17:22:09 [kulick]
WalterH: I think that the editor's draft is a bit different than Mayer's proposal in a meaningful way
17:22:17 [vinay]
17:22:19 [johnsimpson]
17:22:24 [vinay]
sorry for not clarifying which chris
17:22:29 [susanisrael]
.....i think there are 2 schools of thought here, will try to address.
17:22:38 [WaltervH]
kulick: I like Lee's definition of collection better, I like the editor's draft on sharing better, although Vinay's may be best actually
17:22:40 [johnsimpson]
17:22:44 [Chris_IAB]
Great, can folks please say "Chris P" or "Chris M" so we know which Chris you are referring to? :)
17:22:49 [susanisrael]
cargill: will be moving into consensus mode on this. Please monitor the message traffic
17:23:01 [npdoty]
vinay, to fielding's point, we could use the consolidated updates on the wiki
17:23:09 [susanisrael]
johnsimpson: that message traffic, has that been on list ?
17:23:14 [susanisrael]
lee: no, among us
17:23:29 [jeff_]
Chris, I'm trying to figure out how to balance industry's critique that we are moving too slowly with your critique that we are moving too quickly.
17:23:30 [susanisrael]
vinay: i plan to send out once i am sure i am speaking for lee and david
17:23:49 [jeff_]
Chris, can you help me push back on those in industry who say that they will go elsewhere because we are moving too slowly?
17:23:56 [susanisrael]
cargill: initial request last week to vinay was to work with lee and david on this. Now ask them to put back on list.
17:24:05 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
17:24:10 [susanisrael]
cargill: trying to be sensitive to number of messages.
17:24:15 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff_, what critique from industry are you referring to, that we are moving too slowly? That hasn't come from us...
17:24:38 [susanisrael] the same time i would like to present something more complete.
17:24:52 [Chapell]
jeff, the issue isn't that w3c is moving quickly (or not). Rather, the issue is whether you are moving logically, methodically, and in a way that limits co-chairs and w3c staff from imposing their own consensus upon the working group
17:25:06 [vinay]
Sure npdoty. I may need some help doing that, but I'll see if I can figure out how to update the Wiki
17:25:12 [susanisrael]
cargill: please do monitor
17:25:24 [npdoty]
vinay, yes, I can definitely help
17:25:44 [npdoty]
17:25:47 [npdoty]
ack johnsimpson
17:25:50 [johnsimpson]
17:25:51 [susanisrael]
vinay: I will send out definition of collect once off call, then will try to work with david singer, chris p and amy to try to find consensus.
17:25:52 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff_, you probably shouldn't conflate "moving too slowly" with "moving in the wrong directions" or "moving without consistent direction" -- I have led spec work for industry that's taken 2-years, but it was always moving in a positive direction -- it just took time, because everyone has other "day jobs" that they report to first
17:26:16 [jeff_]
17:26:32 [jeff_]
Chris, "If you measure it by progress it is dead"
17:26:32 [Zakim]
17:26:33 [susanisrael]
matthias: by next week we are likely to come back with finalized plan
17:26:34 [Zakim]
17:26:36 [Zakim]
17:26:38 [Zakim]
17:26:40 [Zakim]
17:26:41 [Zakim]
17:26:43 [Zakim]
17:26:46 [Zakim]
17:26:47 [Zakim]
17:26:47 [Zakim]
17:26:48 [Zakim]
17:26:48 [Zakim]
17:26:49 [Zakim]
17:26:49 [Zakim]
17:26:51 [Zakim]
17:26:51 [Zakim]
17:26:51 [Zakim]
17:26:51 [Zakim]
17:26:53 [Zakim]
17:26:53 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff_, wrong context
17:26:55 [Zakim]
17:26:56 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
17:26:56 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been rvaneijk, Wendy, npdoty, Jeff, dwainberg, eberkower, WaltervH, Carl_Cargill, Jack_Hobaugh, Amy_Colando, Mike_Zaneis, +49.431.988.aaaa,
17:26:56 [Zakim]
... ninja, WileyS, RichardWeaver, Fielding, hefferjr, moneill2, WaltMichel, kulick, RobSherman, Bryan_Sullivan, Chris_IAB, Brooks, hwest, [Adobe], Chris_Pedigo, Chapell,
17:27:00 [Zakim]
... Peder_Magee, [Microsoft], FPFJoeN, schunter, SusanIsrael, sidstamm, [FTC], MECallahan, johnsimpson, LeeTien, Joanne, MattHayes
17:27:00 [Zakim]
17:27:00 [Zakim]
17:27:00 [Zakim]
17:27:02 [Zakim]
17:27:07 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
17:27:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
17:27:09 [Zakim]
17:27:10 [Zakim]
17:27:12 [Chris_IAB]
Jeff_, context of that was, "making progress", not slow or fast
17:27:18 [Zakim]
17:27:19 [Zakim]
17:27:20 [Zakim]
17:27:27 [Zakim]
17:27:49 [Zakim]
17:31:50 [Zakim]
17:34:04 [johnsimpson]
johnsimpson has left #dnt
17:41:30 [jeff_]
jeff_ has joined #dnt
17:48:49 [Zakim]
17:48:55 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
17:48:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were rvaneijk, Wendy, npdoty, Jeff, dwainberg, eberkower, WaltervH, Carl_Cargill, Jack_Hobaugh, Amy_Colando, Mike_Zaneis, +49.431.988.aaaa, ninja, WileyS, RichardWeaver,
17:48:57 [Zakim]
... Fielding, hefferjr, moneill2, WaltMichel, kulick, RobSherman, Bryan_Sullivan, Chris_IAB, Brooks, hwest, [Adobe], Chris_Pedigo, Chapell, Peder_Magee, [Microsoft], FPFJoeN,
17:48:57 [Zakim]
... schunter, SusanIsrael, sidstamm, [FTC], MECallahan, johnsimpson, LeeTien, Joanne, MattHayes
17:49:16 [npdoty]
rrsagent, bye
17:49:16 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items