16:56:19 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 16:56:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/11/06-dnt-irc 16:56:21 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:56:21 Zakim has joined #dnt 16:56:23 Zakim, this will be TRACK 16:56:23 ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started 16:56:24 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 16:56:24 Date: 06 November 2013 16:56:29 rrsagent, set log public 16:56:31 mecallahan has joined #DNT 16:57:27 +Rigo 16:57:33 zakim, who is here? 16:57:33 On the phone I see MECallahan, Rigo 16:57:34 On IRC I see mecallahan, Zakim, RRSAgent, JackHobaugh, walter, trackbot, hober, rigo, wseltzer 16:57:45 GSHans has joined #dnt 16:57:52 +schunter 16:58:09 Joanne has joined #DNT 16:58:18 schunter has joined #dnt 16:58:42 +WaltMichel 16:58:56 rachel_n_thomas has joined #dnt 16:58:58 kj has joined #dnt 16:59:03 justin has joined #dnt 16:59:11 regrets+ wseltzer 16:59:11 dwainberg has joined #dnt 16:59:27 +dwainberg 16:59:30 FPFJoeN has joined #dnt 16:59:31 +Joanne 16:59:39 +Rachel_N_Thomas 16:59:55 adrianba has joined #dnt 17:00:01 +Jack_Hobaugh 17:00:15 +Ari 17:00:27 Ari has joined #dnt 17:00:27 vinay has joined #dnt 17:00:33 kulick has joined #dnt 17:00:45 +Carl_Cargill 17:00:51 +Amy_Colando 17:00:54 Richard_comScore has joined #dnt 17:00:57 moneill2 has joined #dnt 17:01:05 +RichardWeaver 17:01:10 +AWK 17:01:16 +kulick 17:01:33 +[CDT] 17:01:36 +hefferjr 17:01:41 zakim, cdt has me 17:01:41 +justin; got it 17:02:05 zakim, drop RichardWeaver 17:02:05 RichardWeaver is being disconnected 17:02:06 -RichardWeaver 17:02:13 + +1.301.633.aaaa 17:02:20 scribenick: gshans 17:02:22 Zakim, FPFJoeN is 301 17:02:22 sorry, FPFJoeN, I do not recognize a party named 'FPFJoeN' 17:02:23 npdoty has joined #dnt 17:02:34 susanisrael has joined #dnt 17:02:35 +SusanIsrael 17:02:40 zakim, aaaa is FPFJoeN 17:02:40 +FPFJoeN; got it 17:02:41 zakim, 301 is me 17:02:42 sorry, FPFJoeN, I do not recognize a party named '301' 17:02:49 zakim, please mute me 17:02:49 FPFJoeN should now be muted 17:02:55 I am 301 17:03:02 zakim, aaaa is FPFJoeN 17:03:02 sorry, rigo, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 17:03:02 (calling remotely today) 17:03:19 zakim, who is here? 17:03:19 On the phone I see MECallahan, Rigo, schunter, WaltMichel, dwainberg, Joanne, Rachel_N_Thomas, Jack_Hobaugh, Ari, Carl_Cargill, Amy_Colando, AWK, kulick, [CDT], hefferjr, FPFJoeN 17:03:23 ... (muted), SusanIsrael 17:03:23 [CDT] has justin 17:03:23 On IRC I see susanisrael, npdoty, moneill2, Richard_comScore, kulick, vinay, Ari, adrianba, FPFJoeN, dwainberg, justin, kj, rachel_n_thomas, schunter, Joanne, GSHans, mecallahan, 17:03:23 ... Zakim, RRSAgent, JackHobaugh, walter, trackbot, hober, rigo, wseltzer 17:03:39 hwest has joined #dnt 17:03:45 +RichardWeaver 17:03:49 +hwest 17:04:01 +moneill2 17:04:22 ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt 17:04:29 +Chris_Pedigo 17:04:41 Schunter: last week sent around final plan. goal is to do option 3 - TPE first, then compliance. While TPE should be self-contained, can't mix and match with other documents. 17:05:00 q? 17:05:02 Brooks has joined #dnt 17:05:07 Carl: Still a work in progress, taking a lot of cycles. 17:05:14 was there an agenda for today? 17:05:16 JC has joined #DNT 17:05:31 Chapell has joined #DNT 17:05:46 +[Microsoft] 17:05:50 Schunter: main Q - how to ensure what is in doc is well defined. 17:05:58 +Chapell 17:06:00 zakim, Microsoft has JC 17:06:00 +JC; got it 17:06:04 Can someone post an agenda for today's call? 17:06:18 eberkower has joined #dnt 17:06:25 +Brooks 17:06:51 matt has joined #dnt 17:07:04 http://www.w3.org/mid/52792C63.3070204@schunter.org 17:07:04 +MattHayes 17:07:04 I think Matthias accidentally just sent to the Chairs list. I just forwarded to the public list, but I've been having email problems. 17:07:06 fielding has joined #dnt 17:07:12 + +1.646.654.aabb 17:07:22 Zakim, aabb is eberkower 17:07:22 +eberkower; got it 17:07:27 +Fielding 17:07:33 Carl: Options 3 and 4 received approx same # of votes, with 3 in lead. Given that 1 & 2 didn't receive many votes, we're looking to do 3/5 - 3+4 combined so we can move forward. This has led to serious discussions about crafting a way forward. We think we have a way forward, but still have to iron out some elements - need to clear some of the details. 17:07:37 But the agenda is basically Issue-5, Issue-10, Issue-16, and share definitions. 17:07:43 q? 17:07:51 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Nov/0024.html 17:08:07 wseltzer has changed the topic to: 6 Nov Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Nov/0024.html 17:08:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Nov/0024.html 17:08:47 Topic: Finalised revised TPWG plan based on option 3 (Matthias/Carl) 17:08:49 Agenda above 17:09:18 zakim, who is here? 17:09:18 On the phone I see MECallahan, Rigo, schunter, WaltMichel, dwainberg, Joanne, Rachel_N_Thomas, Jack_Hobaugh, Ari, Carl_Cargill, Amy_Colando, AWK, kulick, [CDT], hefferjr, FPFJoeN 17:09:21 ... (muted), SusanIsrael, RichardWeaver, hwest, moneill2, Chris_Pedigo, [Microsoft], Chapell, Brooks, MattHayes, eberkower, Fielding 17:09:21 [Microsoft] has JC 17:09:21 [CDT] has justin 17:09:21 On IRC I see fielding, matt, eberkower, Chapell, JC, Brooks, ChrisPedigoOPA, hwest, susanisrael, moneill2, Richard_comScore, kulick, vinay, Ari, adrianba, FPFJoeN, dwainberg, 17:09:22 ... justin, kj, rachel_n_thomas, schunter, Joanne, GSHans, mecallahan 17:09:29 Apologies to all for delayed posting . . . 17:10:07 Carl: Agenda - Scribe, ID, finalize agenda. Issue-5. Continued input is sought. 17:10:13 Yes. My mistake... 17:10:34 Topic: ISSUE-5 17:10:38 issue-5? 17:10:39 issue-5 -- What is the definition of tracking? -- open 17:10:39 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/5 17:11:07 +[Microsoft.a] 17:11:09 zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me 17:11:09 +adrianba; got it 17:11:12 Schunter: we will move to call for objections on issue 5. 17:11:18 WileyS has joined #dnt 17:11:21 q+ 17:11:34 November 20: Call for Objection closes 17:11:36 November 20: Call for Objection closes 17:11:47 q? 17:11:54 ack Brooks 17:11:55 +WileyS 17:11:57 ack brooks 17:12:08 Brooks: How do we do issue-5 before issue-16 if issue-5 has definitions contingent on issue-16/ 17:12:52 I agree with Brooks, these definitions cannot be finalized in isolation. 17:12:54 schunter: both definitions contain literal language and explanations, so there will always be some dependencies, but we have to pick one to start with. 17:13:01 q? 17:13:24 Brooks: this just moves the ball down the road. 17:13:30 +q 17:13:31 Schunter: other issue-5 questions? 17:13:41 ack wileys 17:13:42 ack WileyS 17:14:23 WileyS: how far can we stretch friendly amendment request? We would like to put forward def. of tracking for issue-5 that DAA is putting forward. 17:14:44 WileyS has joined #dnt 17:14:50 +LeeTien 17:15:01 schunter: we closed call for issues a few weeks ago. don't want to open it again. Have to pick one of the three, or pick none. 17:15:19 We've been doing this for *years* . . . 17:15:55 laurengelman has joined #dnt 17:16:08 +laurengelman 17:16:19 Is the definition public? 17:16:26 If it is new information, it can be proposed later. I am certain that the DAA-prototype definition won't be new, even though I have not seen it. I am also certain that it won't be accepted by the group regardless. 17:16:39 WileyS: The difficulty here is timing. the DAA is working towards a definition. Would be ideal to have alignment between W3C and the DAA. Not introducing it for consideration would prevent further problems. 17:16:52 q? 17:17:16 WileyS: having alignment with compliance from DAA and technical definitions in TPE would be ideal. 17:18:00 Justin: could do what Roy proposed. 17:18:01 ChrisPedigoOPA_ has joined #dnt 17:18:33 Shane, alignment is expected, which is why the DAA will eventually align with a W3C definition if we ever have one, because the DAA has no credibility whatsoever at this point outside its own membership. 17:18:45 WileyS: could end up on divergent courses. 17:18:56 Justin: When it's ready, bring it back to the group. 17:20:28 Carl: If we get a regulatory statement (say from Europe), then we are forced to deal with that as well. This would open pandora's box. 17:20:43 zakim, who is barking? 17:20:43 I don't understand your question, rigo. 17:20:47 put that dog away 17:22:24 WileyS: majority of third parties that this impacts. Primary driver here should be implementation. 17:23:07 Justin: When it's ready to bring to us, bring it up. 17:23:12 Topic: ISSUE-10 [Justin] 17:23:19 issue-10? 17:23:19 issue-10 -- What is a first party? -- open 17:23:19 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10 17:23:20 q+ 17:23:23 I have to go into listening only mode. 17:23:36 The purpose of a definition of tracking in TPE is to define what the user is expressing. Therefore, it is entirely defined by how the browsers present that option to the user. Whether or not a site wishes to adhere to that expressed preference is an entirely different question. Perhaps they won't, but they will at least know what the user is asking. 17:23:41 Carl/Justin/Rigo: Can you take over? 17:23:47 Zakim, please mute me 17:23:47 eberkower should now be muted 17:25:19 Justin: Issue-10 - roy's proposal, and david's proposal, will move forward. Alternative - don't define this in TPE. Could have it defined in compliance. 17:25:53 November 20: Call for Objection closes 17:26:03 on ISSUE-10 17:26:31 q? 17:27:01 Roy: group needs an understanding of the terms, even if they're not in the document. need to know what they mean even if not in protocol. might be possible to remove all notions of parties from TPE 17:27:24 Justin: we're going to close the issue. if group participants want to object to either document, that's ok. 17:27:26 q? 17:27:27 ack dwan 17:27:28 ack dw 17:28:06 dwainberg: doesn't make sense to include party defs in TPE - would be better to wait in compliance doc. 17:28:14 q+ amy 17:28:18 ack amy 17:28:18 ack amy 17:28:55 Amy Colando: Q for Roy. Is there a way to put some defs in a guidance doc that's not part of the specification? 17:29:22 q? 17:29:24 Roy: could have a user's guide a la a glossary. 17:30:03 Carl: Issue-16 17:30:11 Topic: ISSUE-16 17:30:16 issue-16? 17:30:16 issue-16 -- What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data? -- open 17:30:16 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/16 17:30:35 Carl: vinay is driving the discussion. there have been a lot of msgs back and forth. 17:30:46 cOlsen has joined #dnt 17:31:21 +[FTC] 17:31:51 zakim, FTC has Olsen 17:31:51 +Olsen; got it 17:32:07 Many other WGs have published user guide documents, usually as Notes, that include less formal descriptions, configuration advice, and guidance regarding how to make use of the corresponding technical standard. 17:32:19 vinay: has raised Qs that we need to address. Lot of emails last week. Have proposed compromise language. a few things have come from that. 1) most of the group is under idea that there is a difference between sharing (transferring of data) vs facilitating (allowing others to collect). dwainberg asked - we were defining terms that were 1) dependent on tracking and 2) possible outside TPE. No consensus yet. Possible that roy's work could address. 17:33:09 fielding: tracking definition uses collection in a way that assumes that we're discussing retention or sharing. 17:33:39 vinay: many are concerned that compliance obligations fall outside TPE and the compliance obligations should define the terms. 17:34:33 q+ 17:34:36 q+ 17:35:19 fielding: user has to express intent and doesn't have a choice on which compliance document to refer to. if there's no protocol that defines its own terms, there's no protocol at all. The definitions have to be used and understood by user. 17:35:25 ack Broo 17:35:34 Roy, disagree on the alignment direction - just now seeing your "credibility" statement. In that light, I'm assuming the W3C's credibility here is the P3P standard? 17:36:13 Brooks: What we're recognizing here is that TPE is supposed to represent your preference. The preference is defined by compliance document. Difficult to express preference in a way that depends on something that has yet to be drafted. Outcome is to take more and more of compliance doc and put it into TPE. 17:36:30 +RobSherman 17:36:33 robsherman has joined #dnt 17:36:50 Brooks: alternatively - say that you're making a choice with respect to something that has yet to be defined. As we're seeing, it's integral to what TPE is setting out to do. 17:36:54 ack dw 17:37:51 dwainberg: to follow on, what are we imagining is going to happen with the document once we reach last call. 17:38:01 q? 17:38:01 +1 to David's question 17:38:11 Implementation is relevant 17:38:34 fielding: what's the issue? 17:38:41 A protocol that Servers will implement = success 17:38:55 wainberg: a protocol that's incomplete is not helpful. 17:39:17 We're just trying to standardize the expression of a desire not to be tracked. That's what TPE does (inter alia). 17:39:56 fielding: same way they do now - we will honor DNT signal that is business-specific. it would be better to have universal standard, but we don't. it is necessary for user to understand what they are configuring across all browsers. otherwise protocol is not uniform from user perspective and no chance that sites can implement correctly. 17:41:16 q? 17:41:19 fieldign: in every development, there will be areas where standard is under development and there could be some market confusion. however, possible failure is not a reason to not try. 17:42:09 schunter has joined #dnt 17:42:27 WileyS: example contradicts the possibility. introducing a def of DNT and having a further proliferation. 17:42:29 amyc has joined #dnt 17:42:39 q+ 17:43:04 ack schun 17:43:06 fielding: what we have now is a number of PR campaigns. If we can't resolve the issue, i'll ask the browsers, but if we can't do that, then we've given up. 17:43:28 schunter: important to express what DNT-1 means, and tracking vs. not tracking. 17:43:35 q? 17:43:37 GSHans, that was David W. speaking... not Shane. 17:44:17 vinay: not clear how to proceed. do hear the concerns. 17:44:43 Cargill: do we have enough clarity to initiate call for objections. 17:44:59 [correction to earlier - wainberg speaking, not wileys] 17:45:24 q? 17:45:53 vinay; some people are uncomfortable defining terms that are dependent on tracking, or if there are compliance questions 17:46:34 justin: once we have common understanding of meaning, that will shape how compliance is defined. 17:47:33 cargill: on one hand, we want terms defined if they are to be used. on other hand, may not want to use term even if it is defined. unless we define terms you can't object to them. you can only objection to the inclusion of a non-defined term, which is acceptable in some sense. 17:48:53 Vinay called it perfectly 17:48:58 vinay: I think there are some people who are uncomfortable with agreeing to language without knowing how it's going to be used. 17:49:10 If the WG can't make a decision on behalf of the users, then browser developers will have to choose a common definition of Do Not Track. If they refuse to do so, then there is no protocol to specify. 17:49:12 Definitions blind of context in use are difficult to agree to... 17:49:38 But doesn't the definition then define what the context will be? 17:49:48 cargill: are we objecting to inclusion, or to defintiion> 17:50:15 Roy, since browsers are already sending the signal do you believe they've already choosen a "common definition"? Since they lack one and they are able to send the signal, there doesn't appear to be dependency. 17:50:25 schunter has joined #dnt 17:50:58 justin: are there people who object to the substance? 17:52:03 If we can agree on vocabulary, it sounds like then we should just revise other language based on common understanding of terms. 17:52:09 Shane, they do have a common definition -- they just don't have the wording for it. My proposal covers what the browsers have documented, other than the default issue which is still a fault in MSIE. 17:52:12 q? 17:52:21 LeeTien: no strong objection to the language. There is some lack of clarity, but there's not a clear way out. But it's good enough for someone who's careful. V. interested to see what Roy comes up with. 17:53:17 cargill: Issue-16. Four terms to define. May have some consensus on those terms as defined. Do not have consensus if these terms should be included in TPE or if they should be made operative in context of TPE. Correct? 17:53:21 schunter has joined #dnt 17:53:28 q+ 17:53:46 Vinay: Yes. There is some apprehension about agreeing without knowing of consequences, but general agreement. 17:54:00 ISSUE-16: Carl says, Four terms to define. May have some consensus on those terms as defined. Do not have consensus if these terms should be included in TPE or if they should be made operative in context of TPE. 17:54:00 Notes added to ISSUE-16 What does it mean to collect, retain, use and share data?. 17:54:36 Note that all of those terms are used in the definition of tracking, so … 17:55:05 Cargill: Vinay, LeeTien - if they could be written up (along with David Singer) with a statement of what they mean, we will then put out Call for objections. We will move them into 16 - and call for objections on definition as well as on inclusion. 17:55:39 robsherman has joined #dnt 17:55:43 this is unlike the question of whther to include "party", which is not currently in the definition of tracking but is used in TPE for compliance pointers. 17:55:58 q? 17:55:58 s/whther/whether/ 17:56:02 ack Bro 17:56:27 Brooks: we are looking for consequences before the horse. if we choose not to define these terms, these are the terms that tracking is based on. 17:56:32 Justin: what are the ramifications? 17:56:55 Brooks: If we're going to have key terms part of tracking, decide whether they can be defined first before tracking. 17:57:12 q? 17:57:39 Can we like one or more definitions and not others in the Call for Objection? 17:57:59 q+ 17:58:05 Cargill: at least some of the terms are viable in Issue 16. 17:58:11 ack JackHobaugh 17:58:12 Sure, eberkower --- doubt we'll want to create a massive five-dependency matrix, but you can feel free to be clear in the comments field which you want to include or not. 17:58:32 Ok, thanks 17:58:43 Jack: Sounds like we're still in compliance document. We should open up TPE and work on that, then make the decision. 17:58:45 Agree with Jack! 17:59:22 You can begin work on the TPE and just not *start* with the definitions. Plenty else to discuss there. 17:59:31 q? 17:59:37 none of the ISSUE-16 terms indicate a form compliance -- they would be necessary to say anything about compliance, but that's separate. 17:59:45 Justin: Think we should close out issues, and there aren't a lot of issues open in TPE. If there are specific things that you want, raise them. 18:00:12 Topic: definition of network interaction and user interaction 18:00:19 issue-204? 18:00:19 issue-204 -- Definitions of collection / retention and transience / network interaction -- raised 18:00:19 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/204 18:00:28 issue-217? 18:00:28 issue-217 -- Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction -- raised 18:00:28 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/217 18:00:36 issue-228? 18:00:36 issue-228 -- Revise the Network Interaction definition -- raised 18:00:36 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/228 18:00:40 -Ari 18:01:40 There are three related issues all going to a definition of network transaction. I believe fielding has proposed specific text under a different issue, I will go look for it. 18:01:55 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Revise_network_interaction_definition 18:02:01 Issues 204, 217, ad 228. 18:02:40 228 is just a duplicate of 217 18:02:44 Here are (some of) Roy's comments on this issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0102.html 18:02:50 204: From the June draft on, definitions of collect and retain have included a concept of "transience"; should we define this term or use concepts of network interaction? 18:03:35 Cargill: 204. Issues of transience. 217. Terminology. 18:03:55 term "network interaction" 18:04:07 term "user interaction" 18:04:16 now talking about issue-217? 18:04:26 issue-217? 18:04:26 issue-217 -- Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction -- raised 18:04:26 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/217 18:05:01 -schunter 18:05:13 -Amy_Colando 18:05:21 +schunter 18:05:31 fielding: compliance doc had section called network transaction, but that term was never used elsewhere - usually network interaction. that is thought of is a request and corresponding response. whether the def is in there, unclear if it's referring to single interaction or an entire sequence of web resource requests, starting from initial UI action finishing through to a phase state and to when network requests have stopped. can't use same term for both meanings. 18:05:35 schunter has joined #dnt 18:06:01 Network transaction or interaction aren't used in TPE, so maybe we don't need to include in that document. I do not care. We may not even need it in compliance. 18:06:30 fielding: Not sure if we use single action, or even if we use set of overall requests in any way. 18:07:04 +q 18:07:10 i have to drop. 18:07:22 cargill: within context of driving TPE to completion, not clear if we need these terms. 18:07:44 Fielding: will probably need individual network interaction, but possibly not overall set. 18:08:02 Network Interaction = Request/Response pair? 18:08:11 Cargill: can propose individual network interaction as issue-217. 18:08:20 ack moneill2 18:08:26 ack moneill 18:08:36 -schunter 18:09:04 moneill: tracking does refer to network transaction. 18:09:35 -WileyS 18:09:43 moneill2: not sure whether network interaction is relevant to TPE 18:09:59 +WileyS 18:10:07 The only reason we added this to the discussion was because people raised it during the discussion of share/collect/&c. 18:10:12 q? 18:10:14 Cargill: waiting for definition form roy, will follow up 18:10:39 I don't believe "Network Interaction" is needed from a pure TPE perspective as long as Request and Response are defined (and already are) 18:10:47 issue-217: Postponed until 20 Nov while waiting for a definition from Roy 18:10:47 Notes added to issue-217 Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction. 18:10:55 jackhobaugh: not been much conversation around network interaction 18:11:52 WileyS, I think that's right --- as I said, we started talking about this when we were talking about collect, that's the only reason I added this to the agenda. But if it's not controversial, we can at least consolidate issues. 18:11:58 vinay: can we move definition of collect into 16. 18:12:51 cargill: move issues surrounding collect from 228 to 16 18:14:03 zakim, who is making noise? 18:14:04 zakim, who is making noise? 18:14:14 rigo, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: laurengelman (4%), Jack_Hobaugh (4%), Joanne (20%), Rachel_N_Thomas (4%), Carl_Cargill (4%), AWK (10%), 18:14:17 ... RichardWeaver (20%), Fielding (4%) 18:14:22 zakim, mut AWK 18:14:22 I don't understand 'mut AWK', rigo 18:14:25 justin, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: WileyS (23%), laurengelman (8%), Carl_Cargill (17%), RichardWeaver (4%), Fielding (18%) 18:14:27 zakim, mute AWK 18:14:29 -Joanne 18:14:29 AWK should now be muted 18:14:42 i'm on mute, so you shouldn't be getting noise from my line... 18:14:56 roy: 228 and 217 seem identical. 18:16:11 carl: move definitions from 228 into 16. looking for 18:16:12 ISSUE-228: Decision to consolidate the ISSUE-228 into ISSUE-217 18:16:12 Notes added to ISSUE-228 Revise the Network Interaction definition. 18:16:46 -MattHayes 18:16:50 rigo: merge 204 into 217? 18:17:03 roy: 204 is about issue-5. ask David Singer. 18:17:11 cargill: set 204 aside. 18:17:22 cargill: 228 and 217 merged. collection move to 16. 18:17:26 -WaltMichel 18:18:05 Action: Vinay to move definitions of collection from ISSUE-228 to ISSUE-16 in 2 weeks 18:18:05 Created ACTION-433 - Move definitions of collection from issue-228 to issue-16 in 2 weeks [on Vinay Goel - due 2013-11-13]. 18:18:13 q+ 18:18:24 ack Jack 18:18:52 JackHobaugh: move 228-217 as merged back to wiki? 217 appears to not be on. 18:19:29 actually, 204 is expressing a dependency between 16 and 217 18:19:57 ISSUE-217: Use Jacks wiki page for issue-228 to consolidate definitions 18:19:57 Notes added to ISSUE-217 Terminology for user action, interaction, and network interaction. 18:20:11 q? 18:21:03 dwainberg: planned to discuss criteria for implementation testing. broad agreement to do that sooner rather than later. 18:21:10 justin: is there a proposal? 18:21:24 dwainberg: not yet. can put pen to paper on proposal prior to conversation. 18:21:52 justin: would prefer to have a concrete idea prior to discussion 18:21:57 -Rachel_N_Thomas 18:21:58 -MECallahan 18:22:00 -adrianba 18:22:00 -[CDT] 18:22:01 -hwest 18:22:02 -RobSherman 18:22:02 -kulick 18:22:02 -LeeTien 18:22:03 -hefferjr 18:22:03 -dwainberg 18:22:04 -RichardWeaver 18:22:04 -WileyS 18:22:05 -AWK 18:22:05 -Rigo 18:22:05 -Chris_Pedigo 18:22:08 -Brooks 18:22:09 kulick has left #dnt 18:22:09 -eberkower 18:22:09 -Carl_Cargill 18:22:09 -Chapell 18:22:10 -Jack_Hobaugh 18:22:10 -moneill2 18:22:12 -[Microsoft] 18:22:17 -[FTC] 18:22:29 zakim, list attendees 18:22:29 As of this point the attendees have been MECallahan, Rigo, schunter, WaltMichel, dwainberg, Joanne, Rachel_N_Thomas, Jack_Hobaugh, Ari, Carl_Cargill, Amy_Colando, RichardWeaver, 18:22:33