16:48:28 RRSAgent has joined #dnt 16:48:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/01/22-dnt-irc 16:48:30 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:48:32 Zakim, this will be TRACK 16:48:33 Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference 16:48:33 Date: 22 January 2014 16:48:34 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 12 minutes 16:48:52 Regrets+ BryanSullivan 16:49:19 Regrets+ dsinger 16:51:17 jeff has joined #dnt 16:52:54 is there a way to get jabber authorisation on Zakim? 16:55:08 Regrets+ ChrisPedigo 16:55:33 JackHobaugh has joined #dnt 16:55:36 GSHans has joined #dnt 16:55:40 never mind 16:56:29 T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started 16:56:37 +npdoty 16:57:01 +Wendy 16:57:18 zakim, call ninja-mobile 16:57:18 ok, ninja; the call is being made 16:57:20 +Ninja 16:57:49 moneill2 has joined #dnt 16:58:16 zakim,, mute me 16:58:16 I don't understand ', mute me', ninja 16:58:17 sidstamm has joined #dnt 16:58:31 zakim, mute Ninja 16:58:31 Ninja should now be muted 16:58:45 +[IPcaller] 16:58:51 +Jack_Hobaugh 16:59:19 mecallahan has joined #dnt 16:59:20 +Jeff 16:59:20 zakim, ipcaller is moneill2 16:59:21 +moneill2; got it 17:00:33 Ari has joined #dnt 17:00:39 vincent has joined #dnt 17:00:47 +vincent 17:00:47 +Ari 17:00:52 +Carl_Cargill 17:01:29 carlcargill has joined #dnt 17:01:30 Chris_IAB has joined #dnt 17:01:30 zakim, agenda? 17:01:31 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda: 17:01:32 1. Confirmation of scribe [from ninja] 17:01:32 2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja] 17:01:32 3. ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? [from ninja] 17:01:32 4. ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context? [from ninja] 17:01:33 5. ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) [from ninja] 17:01:33 6. AoB [from ninja] 17:01:39 eberkower has joined #dnt 17:02:11 justin has joined #dnt 17:02:14 +??P40 17:02:18 just joined the line 17:02:18 +kulick 17:02:21 +[CDT] 17:02:24 + +1.813.366.aaaa 17:02:27 zakim, ??p40 is Chris_IAB 17:02:27 +Chris_IAB; got it 17:02:28 Zakim, [CDT] has me 17:02:29 +GSHans; got it 17:02:34 zakim, mute GSHans 17:02:34 sorry, GSHans, I do not know which phone connection belongs to GSHans 17:02:36 hwest has joined #dnt 17:02:39 zakim, mute [CDT] 17:02:39 [CDT] should now be muted 17:02:42 Zakim, aaaa is eberkower 17:02:42 +eberkower; got it 17:02:52 +hwest 17:03:11 Zakim, mute me, please 17:03:11 eberkower should now be muted 17:03:16 I can scribe til 1245 17:03:20 +dwainberg 17:03:21 fielding has joined #dnt 17:03:24 WileyS has joined #dnt 17:03:28 dwainberg has joined #dnt 17:03:30 ill give it a go 17:03:42 +Fielding 17:03:42 scribenick: GSHans 17:03:49 +MECallahan 17:04:00 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:04:00 On the phone I see npdoty, Wendy, Ninja (muted), moneill2, Jack_Hobaugh, Jeff, vincent, Ari, Carl_Cargill, Chris_IAB, kulick, [CDT] (muted), eberkower (muted), hwest, dwainberg, 17:04:04 ... Fielding, MECallahan 17:04:04 [CDT] has GSHans 17:04:12 justin has joined #dnt 17:04:13 +[Mozilla] 17:04:16 Zakim, Mozilla has me 17:04:16 +sidstamm; got it 17:04:40 carlcargill, you might need to get us started, as justin may be having trouble connecting while traveling 17:04:40 +[IPcaller] 17:04:50 zakim, ipcaller is me 17:04:50 +walter; got it 17:05:02 +[IPcaller] 17:05:13 +Chapell 17:05:13 zakim, ip caller is me 17:05:15 I don't understand 'ip caller is me', justin 17:05:19 Zakim, ipcaller is justin 17:05:19 +justin; got it 17:05:28 Chapell has joined #DNT 17:05:29 chair: justin, carlcargill 17:05:34 +WileyS 17:05:48 +hefferjr 17:05:55 yes 17:05:55 justin: either your connection is awful, or mine 17:06:01 or both, of course 17:06:12 +SusanIsrael 17:06:13 i am scribing 17:06:15 ok, then it is my lousy hotel wifi 17:06:18 susanisrael has joined #dnt 17:06:27 Zakim, take up agendum 1 17:06:28 agendum 1. "Confirmation of scribe" taken up [from ninja] 17:06:31 issue-239? 17:06:31 issue-239 -- Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference? -- raised 17:06:31 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239 17:06:34 Zakim, close agendum 1 17:06:34 agendum 1, Confirmation of scribe, closed 17:06:35 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:06:35 2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja] 17:06:39 Zakim, take up agendum 3 17:06:39 agendum 3. "ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference?" taken up [from ninja] 17:06:40 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_status_URL_array_for_compliance_regimes 17:06:44 -walter 17:07:01 Justin: First issue - ISSUE-239. Technically supposed to go to CfO today. NPDoty was the only person opposed to Roy's proposal. 17:07:26 +hober 17:07:38 +[IPcaller] 17:07:44 zakim, ipcaller is me 17:07:46 +walter; got it 17:08:03 NPDoty: Sent a quick email about ISSUE-241. Others had expressed concerns about Roy's proposal and I suggested that people would possibly prefer a 241 solution. I think that is the case. It would be descriptive and not in conflict with Roy's. I prefer Proposal 2, for compliance regimes, for the reasons previously enumerated. 17:08:14 +??P7 17:08:18 q+ 17:08:28 schunter has joined #dnt 17:08:34 On the side of keeping the array - makes complete sense for real-world applications 17:09:15 q- 17:09:15 q? 17:09:21 WileyS, why using qualifiers would not? 17:09:31 NPDoty: Concern that we'll give less clarity to users if we can't explain a single compliance concept back to them at this time, and not sure what user agents would do with an array, except for doing white-listing or black-listing. Thus there would be an advantage in defining compliance. 17:09:45 Zakim, who is on the phone? 17:09:45 On the phone I see npdoty, Wendy, Ninja (muted), moneill2, Jack_Hobaugh, Jeff, vincent, Ari, Carl_Cargill, Chris_IAB, kulick, [CDT] (muted), eberkower (muted), hwest, dwainberg, 17:09:48 ... Fielding, MECallahan, [Mozilla], justin, Chapell, WileyS, hefferjr, SusanIsrael, hober, walter, ??P7 17:09:48 [CDT] has GSHans 17:09:48 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 17:09:54 Vincent, qualifiers in the response? I was thinking of this being in a well-known URI address by domain 17:10:16 -??P7 17:10:20 kj has joined #dnt 17:10:22 reiterate that having an array of links does not change the number of compliance regimes -- it only communicates them to the user. 17:10:39 +schunter 17:10:46 Justin: Those are understandable. Local compliance regimes make sense (DAA wants to do one), other JXs may want a more rigorous standard applied to European data flows. Given that there has been controversy surrounding the compliance spec in the group, this gives more ability to set that. 17:11:21 still not sure I understand Nick's proposal: can you please post it? 17:11:24 Justin: Does anyone agree that NPDoty's approach to link to compliance standard is the way to go, or go with Roy's array to indicate possible different compliance regimes. 17:11:25 q+ 17:11:49 kulick has joined #dnt 17:12:00 Chris_IAB, I'll try to dig out the links where I've described it a couple times in the past 17:12:00 and is Roy's in writing where we can read it before casting a preference? 17:12:04 I prefer the link approach 17:12:05 WileyS, what's the point of having them in the URI rather than in the response? 17:12:18 Justin: NPDoty proposed not having a link to how one would comply, but rather a signal of compliance or non-compliance. 17:12:23 q? 17:12:25 WaltMichel has joined #DNT 17:12:29 Chris_IAB, the editors' draft text since Thanksgiving shows fielding's proposed text 17:12:41 the wiki provides brief summary: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_status_URL_array_for_compliance_regimes 17:12:46 npdoty, thanks-- can we cut and paste it here? 17:13:05 thanks- that's very helpful Nick 17:13:08 reading now... 17:13:19 SusanIsrael: Could a resource indicate that it's making use of one or two of permitted uses? 17:13:20 ack susan 17:13:28 +WaltMichel 17:13:31 NPdoty: There would be optional qualifiers that you could use more than one of. 17:13:42 would love to hear from Roy on this... 17:14:09 NPDoty: ... had preferred that indicate a particular type of compliance in the tracking status resource, rather than allowing potentially for an array. 17:14:54 SusanIsrael: I understand the logic of NPDoty's approach and support that, but also could go with the opportunity to use the array of permitted uses, as long as that's optional and there can be more than one. Believe that Chris and Rob support that. 17:15:04 could Roy's approach be documented as a "good practice"? 17:15:22 Justin: There would still be a pointer to an optional regime - is that different from Roy's proposal? Not sure that there is a distinction there. 17:15:22 q? 17:15:52 SusanIsrael: Not sure if I understand fielding's proposal either. 17:16:22 I documented my concerns on fielding's multiple compliance proposal here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Dec/0095.html 17:16:53 fielding: First we should talk about this one issue - 239 (whether we should have a link to one or more compliance docs in the tracking status representation. Do we believe indicating in the TPE talks about the compliance in terms of W3C tracking compliance specification. is there an assumption that everything is defined by the compliance doc? ... 17:17:26 fielding:: or it may be possible that there may be multiple compliance docs in the universe that sites might want to refer to besides the W3C one, or that there are multiple versions of the W3C one that might be adopted over time, and the site would have to say which it was thinking of... 17:18:24 fielding: ... if we all had perfect consensus on v1 of tracking compliance spec, but discovered that a particular org had found a loophole and was claiming compliance in an unsuitable way, so we decided on a new version. now we have two specs, and sites want to declare that they adhere to the second one rather than just the first... 17:19:15 P3P 17:19:18 q? 17:19:32 PICS- or P3P-style 17:19:40 fielding: ... that's the kind of thing that happens with protocols. want to communicate as much transparency as possible. Could include a version status, could add a field that describes all types of compliance, but in this case all that we're doing is giving opportunity to sites to make a list of links that would indicate where or what compliance regimes or regulations they're adhering to... 17:19:51 q? 17:20:07 +Amy_Colando 17:20:33 fielding ... that list is an "and "list, so if there's more than one, you can adhere to more than one. this allows sites to implement tracking status signaling mechanism and not find issues down the road with a new compliance spec. 17:20:35 That seems reasonable to me 17:20:42 Justin: Follow up Qs for fielding or NPDoty? 17:21:07 not really understanding why npdoty prefers to remain silent on this issue? 17:21:44 q+ 17:21:55 Justin: Previous calls seemed to show more support for fielding's proposal. If there are people besides NPDoty who want to go with his approach, OK to keep open for a few more days. If npdoty is the only one who supports, he has agreed to just move forward with fielding's proposal... 17:22:08 Justin, I think Chris and rob may want to comment, so leaving this open for a few more days would be helpful. 17:22:29 indeed, I think my repetitively bringing this up doesn't qualify as "silent" ;) 17:22:33 -walter 17:22:43 Justin: OK to not move to CFO or closing right way, to see what work might done on npdoty's going forward. 17:22:45 Notin favor of pigeon holing compliance to W3C only 17:23:07 which Chris?? 17:23:20 +??P26 17:23:26 ack susan 17:23:26 well, normally we have the practice of a 2-week notice to the mailing list in case people have been traveling and have objections we didn't realize 17:23:28 Chris pedigo. But feel free to join discussion 17:23:34 zakim, p26 is me 17:23:34 sorry, walter, I do not recognize a party named 'p26' 17:23:41 ANY CHRIS! 17:23:48 schunter has joined #dnt 17:23:49 (who is in the working group) 17:23:52 zakim, +??P26 is me 17:23:52 sorry, walter, I do not recognize a party named '+??P26' 17:23:56 Thanks Susan… to the chair, please specify WHICH "Chris" you are referring to :) 17:24:13 Nick did reach out to us and we did support his proposal, but I feel I can't articulate the whole discussion adequately. 17:24:18 CarlCargill: What is the minimal amount of support needed to make a proposal? How do we close and move on, or do we just wait? 17:24:31 zakim, ??P26 is Walter 17:24:32 +Walter; got it 17:24:38 wseltzer: thanks 17:24:38 Carl, I apologize, but I think just a couple more days would be helpful. I don't think this is a deliberate delay. 17:24:41 Zakim, who is making noise? 17:24:46 q+ 17:24:53 npdoty, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: justin (100%), SusanIsrael (4%) 17:25:27 * Apologies, i was typing. 17:25:51 I think we would be able to resolve this today but both Chris Pedigo and Rob Sherman are traveling today and would like to have a couple more things to say. 17:26:02 Justin: Don't think that people are trying to deliberately delay. There is some effort to work it out. For years we had assumed that the two documents would be closely linked, so we are now radically changing that. 17:26:10 Thank you, Justin 17:26:21 my understanding is that there may be some people who don't object either way, but that's distinct 17:26:22 q+ 17:26:30 It's really a scheduling issue. 17:26:57 I think focus was lost a bit over holidays, and that is the other reason a few more days might be helpful. 17:26:58 CarlCargill: NPdoty, what will it take to communicate that we're going to CFO or have consensus? 17:27:25 ack npd 17:27:36 I thought we just did that. 17:27:40 q- 17:28:03 NPDoty: It's up to chairs but we tend to alert over the list. 17:28:15 CarlCargill: What would indicate support or no support? 17:28:36 I think if we hear Rob and Chris join Nick in this discussion and the group reacts we can resolve it. 17:28:39 NPDoty: There is some interest in this issue. 17:28:53 that is a DIFFERENT issue 17:28:54 CarlCargill: Let's have that specified by Friday. 17:29:01 how about we issue a group-wide poll? 17:29:36 SusanIsrael: Want to hear thoughts from people beyond NPDoty - e.g. Rob and Chris - there might be a chance to get more of a reaction. 17:29:40 keep in mind our attendance is low this week due to the short US week (MLK holiday) and folks taking vacation this week 17:30:00 q? 17:30:02 CarlCargill: Let's say before next week, it's incumbent to NPDoty to determine if we have enough objection, otherwise we'll close next week. 17:30:06 q+ 17:30:14 ack chris 17:31:16 I don't think I adquately understood the context of the discussion on this issue when I participated, so I am reluctant to represent others. 17:31:25 Chris_IAB: Just hearing the debate there, if the Q is re: are there documents outside W3c, that's something pretty pivotal. 17:31:43 that's also the purpose of the we're-closing-this-in-2-weeks reminder email 17:31:43 Justin: would prefer to not do a group-wide poll. 17:31:47 sort of a straw poll? 17:32:08 ... to catch up people who have missed multiple weeks of discussion 17:32:12 The question is whether compliance is explicitly communicated to the user or implicitly tied to an undefined specification. The number or source of compliance has nothing to do with it because OTHER specs can add their own fields to TSR 17:32:45 Chris_Iab: We could do a more "what do you think?" poll? less attendance today. 17:33:06 q+ 17:33:10 Justin: We'll try to close this if we're not getting much of a response. 17:34:00 I think I may have been confusing the two issues as well, apologies. 17:34:06 NPDoty: there is another issue that we've been talking about (241) which indicates party status. But sending the email re: 2 weeks to close is the way to do notice. 17:34:08 https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241 17:34:09 q- 17:34:56 the we're-closing-this-in-2-weeks reminder email tends to take 2 weeks 17:35:11 Thank you, Justin. Apologies, Nick for being a bit confused despite your taking the time to talk through this offline. 17:35:30 Justin: OK to indicate still under discussion 17:35:31 seems reasonable 17:35:51 zakim, drop agendum 3 17:35:51 agendum 3, ISSUE-239: Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference?, dropped 17:35:53 Zakim, agenda? 17:35:53 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 17:35:55 2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja] 17:35:55 4. ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context? [from ninja] 17:35:55 5. ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) [from ninja] 17:35:55 6. AoB [from ninja] 17:35:55 -Jeff 17:36:01 Zakim, take up agendum 4 17:36:01 agendum 4. "ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context?" taken up [from ninja] 17:36:08 issue-240? 17:36:08 issue-240 -- Do we need to define context? -- open 17:36:08 http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240 17:36:22 Justin: Next issue is 240. Do we need to define context? New proposal from Susan, Chris Pedigo, and Rob Sherman. SusanISrael, so you want to explain it? Closely tied to def of parties. 17:36:26 wiki - http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context 17:36:52 Question, how do people feel about the idea to let each party signal what context it believes to be operating in? 17:36:53 Regarding Issue-240 will there be a "NO NEED TO DEFINE" option presented in the call for objections? 17:36:59 SusanIsrael: That's a reasonable assessment. Would prefer to have people read it and continue discussion on the list, or on next call. 17:37:07 This is better 17:37:08 (can't speak due to really poor internet connection) 17:37:47 Justin: This seems to align with definition of parties, but you should take a look. OK to have "No def" as an option. JackHobaugh, can you send a note articulating that? 17:37:58 JackHobaugh, that's been mentioned, but I'm not sure we have explicit support -- if you'd support that, let the group know 17:38:11 q? 17:38:15 Justin: Had a lot of discussion on this issue last week. Not sure if there are other thoughts. 17:38:16 q+ 17:38:21 ack ninja 17:38:22 zakim, unmute me 17:38:22 Ninja was not muted, ninja 17:39:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Jan/0040.html 17:39:28 Ninja: schunter sent an email to the list regarding the definitions on the wiki from an email on January 10. 17:40:07 I think this use case question may help the group to understand differences in the proposals 17:40:55 Schunter: defs that were proposed except lifetime collection of things. If I have a widget on the site and visit periodically. Is widget allowed to retain data on visit history indefinitely? If for third parties, does it also mean that it can keep lifelong search history? May not meet user expectations regarding being tracked through multiple sessions. 17:41:49 just once is enough, unless the context is facebook 17:42:08 Schunter: ... eg. FB, widget could know how often I visit FB over a long period of time. Users may not expect that kind of perpetual retention of visit data. 17:43:03 Justin: FB widget could be like farmville. If Farmville knows I've visited FB... Is there a lesser meaning of signals to a first party? Seems contrary to discussions re: compliance and agreement, but if people want to propose that, context should degrade - that's an idea people can bring to the gropu. 17:44:01 q? 17:44:02 Schunter: def of tracking should reflect user expectations, and compliance is the degree to which we meet that. Dependent on party status. Gut feeling would be that some users would be creeped out if there was lifetime history of visits. 17:44:15 we will probably have a long discussion about referral information at some point, but that is about compliance (I think the user would consider it tracking, as does the definition we have, but it might be permitted tracking) 17:44:37 q+ 17:44:38 +q 17:45:01 so would it be useful for people who are proposing "context" definitions to answer schunter's scenario questions? 17:45:02 Justin: Group members who like that persecutive should propose language. 17:45:02 ack fi 17:45:10 fielding, it is not completely a compliance issue. If it's not “across contexts” it's out of scope from the beginning 17:45:28 Fielding: if Q is should we add a notion of time to context, not sure if anyone would be wiling to go in that direction in terms of implementation, but it's worth considering. 17:45:31 time, as in context is ephemeral? 17:45:50 schunter: could be something like subsequent network interactions. could be different contexts depending on time or technical means. 17:45:52 or… context is, in the moment? 17:46:04 yes, agree with Roy 17:46:09 fielding: issue - how do we define in a way that is applicable to all sites. Many sites depend on the memory of context. 17:46:12 can we switch scribes? 17:46:14 maintaining state is important for many applicatioins 17:46:26 I think most of our work has assumed that a widget you interact with multiple times will remember even DNT:1 visitors 17:46:30 the whole point of DNT is to make context ephemeral *again* 17:46:31 fielding: would be much more constraining than discussions re: first party compliance. 17:46:44 -hwest 17:47:12 schunter: important that tracking definitions reflect what users want. 17:47:21 q? 17:47:24 amyc has joined #dnt 17:47:26 q+ 17:47:27 fielding: it should be discussed re: the need for a limit. 17:47:35 ack mo 17:48:58 moneill: context in data control. would be worth mentioning the idea of having a time limit. connected with the way tracking happens re: repeated transactions. there's usually a duration associated. DNT could mean that user IDs are linked for a period of time, whatever it is. it lays another layer of complexity. 17:49:05 npdoty - can we switch scribes? 17:49:07 this is not an invitation to reopen ISSUE-5 17:49:32 ok 17:49:36 scribenick: moneill2 17:49:47 ack Chris_IAB 17:49:48 ack chr 17:50:45 "within the scope of the service requested"? 17:51:04 chris_IAB: agrre with mike, complexity may not be appropriate now, may make spec unimplementable, lets get v1 out, then maybe more complexity 17:51:34 justin, email is thit part of context 17:51:53 fielding, that seems to add ambiguity for cases where I might sign up for a service like Facebook (for years, or the rest of my life) 17:52:20 chris_iab, revisit later if necessary 17:52:33 q? 17:52:36 Chris_IAB: in favor of not adding time as a component of context 17:52:50 ok later this evening 17:53:11 zakim, take up agendum 5 17:53:11 agendum 5. "ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3)" taken up [from ninja] 17:53:18 -Walter 17:53:46 ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241 17:53:46 Notes added to ISSUE-241 Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3). 17:54:54 matthias: issue 241 about misuse taking site elements out of context 1 ir 3 not longer these rules maybe its a debuuging help, not 100% sure if we need it 17:55:13 q? 17:55:16 q+ 17:55:26 ack np 17:55:29 mattgis: no strong opinion either way, if nobody strongly promiting I would drop them 17:55:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2014Jan/0106.html 17:55:33 -MECallahan 17:56:41 nick: i dropped text on list here it is. might be possible to supply informative qualfiers, isless about helping implementors but more about informing users 17:57:15 nick: compliance implications in compliance regime 17:57:21 q? 17:57:44 matthias: opnions? 17:57:49 that text is compliance: "may be used" 17:57:52 Neutral on this one - pros/cons in both directions 17:57:56 carl: comments? 17:58:15 q+ 17:58:34 ack np 17:58:47 roy: it argues compliance it cannot be anything else, we are adding a lot more terms we need to explain. people will demand explanation 17:59:07 -[CDT] 17:59:19 nick: roy pointing out ambiguity in my text, not using MAY in proper sense 17:59:39 it should be : tracking might occur for X 17:59:50 nick: we do not need to define in great dsetail what debugging purpose should be 17:59:59 thanks for that correction, I will correct for "might" 18:00:11 matthia: is this v important req.. for you? 18:00:21 +Jeff 18:01:21 matthias: they may mix this up with 1sp p exception. Thuis does not make a difference for 1st or 3rd party compliance 18:01:36 -kulick 18:01:40 -dwainberg 18:02:05 jeff has joined #dnt 18:02:07 mathias: my way forward is cCoE or batch closing email 18:02:20 matthias: or just postpone 18:02:29 car: lets not kick the can 18:02:33 q+ 18:02:58 -justin 18:03:10 susanisrael: sevveral of these proposals need other input, lets wait till Friday 18:03:22 mathhias: email to group 18:03:34 carl: make it a group 18:03:35 +[IPcaller] 18:03:46 zakim, ipcaller is me 18:03:46 +justin; got it 18:03:48 Thank you Matthias 18:03:56 q? 18:04:00 carl: closed by 1st meet in Feb 18:04:05 [Can we link this in with the email that goes to the group on 239? 18:04:20 matthias: i will send note 18:04:41 ack npd 18:04:45 +LeeTien 18:05:36 nick: ahead of ourselves here. lrets have initial changes today, early on only an hour to review text. 18:05:48 npdoty, your email used the wrong issue number -- that is issue-241 18:05:57 matthias: final call next week CfO 2 weeks 18:06:23 I will create a wiki page 18:06:38 matthias: lets go CfO in 2 weeks, final text next, 241 or 239 18:06:53 carl: this is 241 18:06:57 apologies, my email says issue-241 in the Subject line, but I see that I said "239" in the body, which I shouldn't have 18:07:09 +q 18:07:18 Sorry about suggestion to link 239 and 241! 18:07:19 I always like keep it simple, but I'd like time to study it 18:07:24 ack mo 18:07:39 Based on the milestone confusion for Issue 241, can I get a clarification on the status of Issue-240 also? 18:07:52 moneill2: sent something about regarding making the whole thing simpler 18:08:16