IRC log of dnt on 2014-02-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:55:06 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
16:55:06 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:55:08 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:55:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
16:55:10 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
16:55:11 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
16:55:11 [trackbot]
Date: 12 February 2014
16:55:32 [ninja]
zakim, agenda?
16:55:32 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
16:55:33 [Zakim]
1. Confirmation of scribe and caller-identification [from from ninja via ninja]
16:55:33 [Zakim]
2. ISSUE-151: UA requirement to handle exceptions [from ninja]
16:55:33 [Zakim]
3. ISSUE-153: Limitations for add-ons [from ninja]
16:55:33 [Zakim]
4. ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) [from ninja]
16:55:34 [Zakim]
5. ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context? [from ninja]
16:55:34 [Zakim]
6. Announcement of plan for the next 3 weeks [from ninja]
16:55:36 [Zakim]
7. AoB [from ninja]
16:56:05 [ninja]
Chairs: justin, schunter, CarlCargill
16:56:23 [ninja]
Regrets: moneill2, robvaneijk
16:56:45 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
16:56:47 [Zakim]
16:57:13 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
16:57:22 [ninja]
zakim, call ninja-mobile
16:57:22 [Zakim]
ok, ninja; the call is being made
16:57:24 [Zakim]
16:58:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.858.229.aaaa
16:58:25 [Zakim]
16:58:27 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:58:27 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:58:42 [Zakim]
16:59:03 [ninja]
aaaa is WileyS
16:59:11 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
16:59:11 [ninja]
zakim, aaaa is WileyS
16:59:11 [Zakim]
+WileyS; got it
16:59:12 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:59:16 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
16:59:46 [Zakim]
17:00:31 [kulick]
kulick has joined #dnt
17:00:39 [Zakim]
17:00:47 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
17:00:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.323.253.aabb
17:00:53 [eberkower]
Zakim, mute me please
17:00:54 [Zakim]
eberkower should now be muted
17:01:08 [Zakim]
17:01:32 [ninja]
zakim, aabb is Ari
17:01:32 [Zakim]
+Ari; got it
17:01:33 [Zakim]
17:01:36 [justin]
zakim, cdt has me
17:01:36 [Zakim]
+justin; got it
17:02:00 [ninja]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:02:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see hefferjr, Ninja, WileyS, [Apple], JackHobaugh, Fielding, eberkower (muted), Ari, kulick, [CDT]
17:02:00 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
17:02:00 [Zakim]
[CDT] has justin
17:02:16 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
17:02:34 [Zakim]
17:02:37 [Zakim]
17:02:38 [vinay]
vinay has joined #dnt
17:02:40 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has me
17:02:40 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
17:03:01 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
17:03:11 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 1
17:03:12 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Confirmation of scribe and caller-identification" taken up [from from ninja via ninja]
17:03:44 [Zakim]
17:03:56 [mecallahan]
mecallahan has joined #dnt
17:03:56 [Zakim]
17:04:22 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
17:04:25 [Zakim]
17:04:29 [ninja]
zakim, ??P3 is schunter
17:04:29 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
17:04:47 [Zakim]
17:04:56 [Zakim]
17:05:01 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
17:05:10 [ninja]
zakim, please choose a scribe
17:05:10 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose eberkower (muted)
17:05:34 [eberkower]
I wear a
17:05:39 [eberkower]
brace on my wrist
17:05:43 [eberkower]
17:05:49 [kulick]
i'll scribe
17:06:03 [ninja]
scribenick: kulick
17:06:07 [justin]
scribenick: kulick
17:06:18 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 2
17:06:18 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "ISSUE-151: UA requirement to handle exceptions" taken up [from ninja]
17:06:19 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
17:06:43 [kulick]
justin: provide update on CFO and then go to 241 and 240
17:06:53 [kulick]
... and then talk about process moving forward
17:06:54 [Zakim]
17:07:35 [kulick]
... we will take a break at closing out TPE and provide time to clean up draft and call out any issues with it
17:07:36 [ninja]
link to results page:
17:07:44 [kulick]
... update on CFOs
17:07:52 [kulick]
.... 151
17:08:09 [kulick]
... one of the hardest... strongest opins both ways
17:08:19 [kulick]
.... option A seemed to have least strong obj
17:08:24 [cOlsen]
cOlsen has joined #dnt
17:09:07 [kulick]
.... option B we thought had strong arguments.... option c strong args as well mainly from dsinger on no tech need
17:09:14 [Zakim]
17:09:40 [ninja]
zakim, who is present?
17:09:40 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, ninja.
17:09:49 [kulick]
... issue 153
17:09:57 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 3
17:09:58 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "ISSUE-153: Limitations for add-ons" taken up [from ninja]
17:10:12 [ninja]
link to results page:
17:10:20 [kulick]
... least strong to adding sentence from shane and david singer to make UAs share responsibility
17:11:05 [dsinger]
17:11:05 [trackbot]
issue-241 -- Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3) -- open
17:11:05 [trackbot]
17:11:07 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 4
17:11:07 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and elements that can be re-used by others (1/3)" taken up [from ninja]
17:11:12 [kulick]
.... two issues that will be going to CFO
17:11:16 [kulick]
... 241
17:11:26 [ninja]
wiki link:
17:11:43 [kulick]
... 3 topins currently, but i thought it was narrowed down to two
17:12:11 [kulick]
.... usage as 1st and 3rd party to be provided OR no change from Roy
17:12:29 [kulick]
.... i dont think the proponents of opt 2 were willing to withdraw
17:12:42 [ninja]
yes, Nick's proposal is no longer valid
17:12:45 [justin]
17:12:52 [kulick]
.... we will announce the CFO on this one tonight
17:13:07 [kulick]
shane: 2 weeks ago i mentioned 143
17:13:12 [dsinger]
17:13:12 [trackbot]
issue-143 -- Activating a Tracking Preference must require explicit, informed consent from a user -- closed
17:13:12 [trackbot]
17:13:15 [kulick]
... i am expecting to turn that in today
17:13:22 [kulick]
... how does that work with the existing timeline
17:13:42 [kulick]
justin: we discussed on call last week
17:13:53 [kulick]
.... however i know you werent there
17:14:09 [kulick]
.... it was decided to be closed against TPE and moved to compliance
17:14:28 [kulick]
... thot could be explored in TPE 2.0
17:14:34 [kulick]
shane: is that a formal finding?
17:14:45 [kulick]
.... can you put that in writing so I can object
17:14:50 [kulick]
justin: i'll do that
17:15:04 [kulick]
.... if you have text or idea, please bring before the group
17:15:55 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
17:16:08 [kulick]
shane: ok... i'll do that... its unfortunate to deal after the fact
17:16:38 [kulick]
justin: sporry about that... i was going to remind, but forgot... there was some discussion on SNV calls and we looked at the minutes...
17:16:54 [kulick]
... we read as a decision not to pursue in the TPE at that time.
17:17:07 [kulick]
... i am personally interested and look forward to your idea
17:17:21 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 5
17:17:21 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context?" taken up [from ninja]
17:17:24 [kulick]
.... finally, discussion on context
17:17:29 [kulick]
... isuee 240
17:17:34 [ninja]
wiki link:
17:17:43 [kulick]
... reach out to try to merrge some proposals
17:17:48 [dsinger]
17:17:56 [kulick]
.... 1, lang from Roy has been amended
17:18:04 [kulick]
... lang from Rob ....
17:18:24 [kulick]
.... an chris PEdigo
17:18:27 [justin]
ack ds
17:18:30 [kulick]
and then one from Chris mejia
17:18:39 [Zakim]
17:18:58 [fielding]
I have been using it normatively since day 1
17:19:10 [kulick]
dsinger: when we defined tracking we decided that we wouldnt normatively used elsewhere but only to explain to the user what the protocol roughly does
17:19:20 [kulick]
.... but not a formal def in other parts of hte doc
17:19:40 [schunter]
17:19:44 [kulick]
justin: i dont recall no normative consequences
17:20:18 [fielding]
17:20:25 [dsinger]
Matthias said several times it could be (would be?) informal, just for the purposes of explaining to the user and introducing the TPE
17:20:31 [kulick]
.... ration for defining tracking is to provide what tracking means in normative terms (not sure I got this right)
17:20:40 [justin]
ack schunter
17:21:10 [fielding]
17:21:11 [kulick]
matthias: 2 places int he cur spec... is where you mention DNT:1 and second is where site specifies no tracking
17:21:27 [kulick]
justin: that is our understanding of the co
17:21:32 [dsinger]
OK, so we're somewhere in between
17:21:37 [kulick]
... the term does have imp meaning
17:21:42 [fielding]
(hmm, looks like I have an old anchor name on that section)
17:21:51 [schunter]
17:22:05 [kulick]
dsinger: (didnt capture)
17:22:20 [ninja]
ack schunter
17:22:38 [fielding]
again, totally not interested in discussing issue-5 again
17:22:39 [kulick]
schunter: user can express and and how server responds is diff
17:22:40 [dsinger]
we're in between in the sense that multiple compliance regimes will define differently what turning off tracking means, and hence what tracking is
17:23:04 [kulick]
justin: we are not re-opeing issue 5, just discussing understanding
17:23:05 [dsinger]
thanks, I think I am about as clear as an in-between state can be...
17:23:23 [justin]
17:23:31 [kulick]
... user mentions what they want and server responds and the compliance handles what that means
17:23:38 [kulick]
... we have 4 options
17:23:45 [kulick]
.... going to CFO today
17:23:47 [fielding]
different compliance regimes might permit tracking in the presence of DNT:1, but it is still tracking in the eyes of the user.
17:23:52 [kulick]
.... 2 weeks to re4spond
17:23:53 [Zakim]
17:24:16 [kulick]
... primary goal: get TPE out
17:24:22 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 6
17:24:22 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Announcement of plan for the next 3 weeks" taken up [from ninja]
17:24:26 [kulick]
.... then turn back to compliance per Oct poll
17:24:43 [kulick]
.... chairs will decide how soon to take up compliance
17:25:03 [kulick]
... decided for longer break due to IAPP and de-compress for folks...
17:25:34 [kulick]
... after break will take up open issues for compliance doc
17:25:46 [justin]
17:25:54 [kulick]
... not sure of issues ordering. if you have thots, pls share
17:25:58 [kulick]
... questions?
17:26:09 [kulick]
pedigo: i am fuzzy
17:26:16 [kulick]
... on the next steps for the tpe
17:26:40 [kulick]
... will there be public comment, testing in real world?
17:26:50 [kulick]
justin: here is newbie chair understanding...
17:26:57 [fielding]
the REC process is an infinite loop
17:27:03 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
17:27:08 [kulick]
.... look over doc, identify errors
17:27:19 [wseltzer]
-> W3C Process, Last Call
17:27:22 [kulick]
.... then, group decides to put for public comment
17:27:29 [kulick]
... this is high profile event
17:27:42 [Zakim]
17:27:42 [kulick]
.... then make decisions about any responses
17:27:43 [Zakim]
17:27:43 [Zakim]
17:27:54 [kulick]
... then go to last call.
17:28:00 [kulick]
.... wendy, sound right?
17:28:05 [Chapell]
Why not wait until we've actually obtained learnings from last call before moving forward with compliance?
17:28:09 [kulick]
wendy: putting to pub comment is the last stage
17:28:25 [kulick]
.... group agrees if ready for public review (i.e. last call)
17:28:34 [kulick]
.... then process comments from public
17:28:42 [kulick]
.... adress each of the public issues
17:28:48 [kulick]
.... then call for imp review
17:29:02 [Chapell]
17:29:03 [kulick]
.... do we have some we can test... does it work as intended
17:29:06 [WileyS]
+1 Alan - could we take a more meaningful break between TPE completion and C&S start? This will give us a bit more time get testing going on the TPE to inform C&S discussions.
17:29:13 [kulick]
... then move to formal recommendations
17:29:19 [kulick]
.... then we go back to charter
17:29:32 [kulick]
.... charter expects us to produce TPE AND compliance
17:29:46 [kulick]
.... further stages we will push compliance doc to same level
17:30:15 [kulick]
pedigo: since hybrid process, which TPE will go to last call versus those that wont
17:30:24 [Chapell]
Charter does not proscribe timing --- in other words, we don't need to start compliance prior to obtaining learnings from getting TPE to last call
17:30:28 [kulick]
wendy: this is why i posted some
17:30:33 [kulick]
... of this
17:30:45 [kulick]
... (scribe not getting all this)
17:31:13 [kulick]
... there are stages after last call where it goes back to group and director before being finalized
17:31:24 [kulick]
... and we expect to have both tpe and compliance
17:31:31 [kulick]
pedigo: i'm still fuzzy
17:31:50 [kulick]
.... i expect we will get a lot of comments on compliance
17:32:13 [kulick]
.... does public comments get addressed by group
17:32:16 [kulick]
wendy: yes
17:32:36 [kulick]
pedigo: calls for imp, do you feel TPE is enough or you need compliance ?
17:32:51 [kulick]
schunter: we need to show inter-operability
17:33:08 [kulick]
pedigo: so we need to wait?
17:33:10 [wseltzer]
17:33:21 [kulick]
schunter: yes, i feel that
17:33:28 [justin]
ack ch
17:33:29 [kulick]
chapell: thanks justin
17:33:35 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
17:33:39 [WileyS]
I think its the other way around - speaking as someone who will actually implement
17:34:12 [ninja]
We don't want to rush Compliance. But steadily taking up the process again.
17:34:13 [kulick]
.... want to understand process to rushing towards compliance doc... concern of closing compliance issues without resolving comments to TPE
17:34:26 [WileyS]
We should take some time (a few months?) to get testing up and running on TPE and allow those realities to inform the C&S discussion.
17:34:27 [kulick]
.... this is a practical concern of making decision with incomplete info
17:35:02 [kulick]
justin: the group will have some info that the group needs to consider
17:35:12 [kulick]
.... chairs should be open to new info
17:35:13 [WileyS]
Justin - to be fair we've not implemented so we haven't had new info to inject back into the discussion
17:35:41 [kulick]
.... mission of w3c, should be standardize way to comply
17:36:04 [kulick]
chapell: is this w3c decision or working group decision to move forward
17:36:21 [kulick]
justin: Oct poll decision is what we are implementing now
17:36:33 [kulick]
chapell: charter doesnt req immediately do this
17:36:43 [ninja]
Chairs' plan on moving forward:
17:36:51 [kulick]
justin: correct, but no reason we cant
17:37:02 [WileyS]
For those of us who actually need to implement we won't have the add'l bandwidth you're speaking to - only those that don't actually have to implement anything will have the bandwidth
17:37:17 [kulick]
.... i hear args on both sides....
17:37:17 [WileyS]
There will be a compliance regime in time for TPE testing
17:37:33 [kulick]
... we will move to TCS
17:37:44 [kulick]
chapell: my question is why so quickly?
17:37:57 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
17:38:24 [WileyS]
David, the TPE has moved fairly swiftly when we focused just on it - don't you agree?
17:38:29 [kulick]
... two reasons to wait... 1- bandwidth, 2. learnings can develop with release of TPE
17:38:36 [kulick]
... should i open an issue on this
17:38:42 [kulick]
... ?
17:38:54 [kulick]
justin: good quest.... i dont know
17:39:04 [kulick]
.... i will talk with chairs after call on the process
17:39:21 [WileyS]
That's because none of the chairs are working on real-world implementations
17:39:25 [dsinger]
we're years behind where we thought we'd be; the group is showing clear signs of senility and tiredness. now we're working yes, there is light at the end of a long long tunnel. that's good.
17:39:28 [kulick]
.... chairs all felt strongly made sense to move forward per opt 3 in the oct poll
17:39:36 [kulick]
.... (missed>
17:39:53 [kulick]
chapell: i dont know i can say what the issues might be
17:40:08 [kulick]
.... history points to that there will be significant learnings
17:40:29 [kulick]
justin: can you articulate these? you can time as we wont pick up until march
17:40:42 [WileyS]
Once we begin injecting the DNT signal into backend systems we'll have a better perspective to understand what is and what is not possible from a compliance perspective
17:41:02 [WileyS]
Not on the Server side...
17:41:08 [ninja]
There is a complete process phase dedicated to addressing input from the implementation.
17:41:08 [kulick]
... .... we are going to test and there are imp now
17:41:29 [kulick]
.... there may be competing compliance regime and we have made accomodations for those
17:41:39 [kulick]
chapell: to clarify
17:42:07 [kulick]
... position of chair is resp of members of working group that there will be potential learning after TPE released
17:42:17 [kulick]
justin: let's not over formalize this
17:42:21 [Zakim]
17:42:26 [schunter]
17:42:41 [justin]
ack sch
17:42:45 [kulick]
chapell: whooo, i have concerns that the chairs are represnting the group on cases always and it might not be
17:42:58 [kulick]
(paaraphrased, correct if I got wrong)
17:43:42 [kulick]
schunter: (paraphrase) easier to do operability with both pie3ces
17:44:00 [Zakim]
17:44:01 [kulick]
... i say we go ahead with TPE and see how it flies
17:44:23 [kulick]
chapell: should we be providing info now of potential things we might learn?
17:44:27 [WileyS]
Matthias, you're hearing from actual implementors that we need time. As you're not an actual implementor, don't you believe you should listen to those of us who actual implement this standard in the real-world?
17:44:41 [kulick]
... is there a change to postpone work on compliance spec based on the info
17:44:43 [JackHobaugh]
It should be possible to test the TPE protocol without the TCS. Stubs can be used where necessary.
17:44:50 [kulick]
justin: speking for myself....
17:45:13 [kulick]
.... it makes sense to discuss TCS and discussing those issues... but can be persuaded
17:45:14 [wseltzer]
17:45:25 [dsinger]
I am confused at what I am hearing. For years people have complained that the W3C is unable to make progress, and now they are asking for delay?
17:45:27 [justin]
ack ws
17:45:29 [kulick]
.... willing to honor will of the group
17:45:55 [kulick]
wendy: procedural, chairs have wide decretion on ordering and when to move forward...
17:46:12 [WileyS]
One of the biggest issues we had with the TCS was detailed use cases to prove what was and was not possible in real-world systems. By giving us some time to implement the TPE (against "another" compliance regime) we'll have better data to give back to the working group for the more debated areas such as Permitted Uses.
17:46:17 [kulick]
... heard from chairs they will listen to validated concerns
17:46:23 [Chapell]
Wendy, you keep referencing the charter, but the charter doesn't specify timing
17:46:58 [kulick]
... we thot getting both out for imp review and experience was important
17:47:03 [dsinger] - see 2.2 Milestones
17:47:16 [wseltzer]
Chapell, the charter has "milestones"
17:47:17 [kulick]
justin: shane you have thots on IRC. is your issue mainly about numbers
17:47:19 [kulick]
17:47:30 [kulick]
shane: biggest issues first time on TCS
17:47:59 [Chapell]
Wseltzer, the charter also references tracking protection lists (:
17:48:13 [kulick]
.... consumer adv wanted more real world data on why something not poss... and now we will be able to have real world data as evidence for why something will or wont work
17:48:25 [Chapell]
Will we be doing tracking protection liss concurrently as well?
17:48:29 [dsinger]
I don't see what has stopped that happening for at least a year; we have now changed the protocol in any important way in maybe a year now
17:48:57 [kulick]
... all these types of roadblocks that were proffered earlier can be provided now with ability to have real world use
17:49:00 [wseltzer]
["Progress of the Tracking Selection List specification along the recommendation track is independent of the progress of the two Tracking Preference specifications."]
17:49:09 [kulick]
.... we will have diff compliance specs....
17:49:32 [kulick]
... that info will be critical to TCS conv to help with best path forward... and this will take time
17:49:48 [ninja]
The official call for implementations comes with the formal status of Candidate Recommendation
17:49:55 [kulick]
... those implementing wont have as much bndwidth
17:50:01 [sidstamm]
dsinger, that's a good question.... why haven't we seen any preliminary data yet?
17:50:16 [kulick]
justin: your company has already been implementing against
17:50:28 [kulick]
.... if you can bring this data forward that would help
17:50:53 [dsinger]
Microsoft has gone ahead and implemented their half, so you even had a browser to work with.
17:50:53 [kulick]
shane: we have some... but we are refactoring due to how changes have come about
17:51:13 [kulick]
.... but not completed... UGE, server side resp;onses
17:51:27 [kulick]
... still lots of imp and learning ahead
17:51:33 [kulick]
.... don't want to be a slave...
17:51:40 [kulick]
... to the schedule
17:52:00 [kulick]
justin: i am not certain what they looks like or changes
17:52:05 [schunter]
Let us discuss this more during the chairs call.
17:52:36 [kulick]
.... ... yopu are prosping to wait some time after TPE and then TCS
17:53:07 [kulick]
shane: lets assume alt compliance is same time
17:53:16 [dsinger]
what compliance side?
17:53:25 [kulick]
... want time to imp and learn and bring learning back to group
17:53:37 [kulick]
... lost opp if we just move forward right away
17:53:47 [WileyS]
DSinger - MSFT still turns on the signal by default so that excludes them immediately
17:53:50 [kulick]
justin: you presummably have lots of data already
17:54:02 [dsinger]
+q to Wendy to say that this is backwards. we do a draft, and then implement against that (mutually) and use that as a learning vehicle
17:54:06 [kulick]
... what arte you asking for 6 months, a year?
17:54:10 [dsinger]
17:54:12 [kulick]
shane: no, a few months
17:54:43 [dsinger]
WileyS, your opinion of the validity of the signal being sent in no way inhibits your ability to test against it
17:54:46 [kulick]
... should have more info(hopeful) end of q2 or q3 to bring info back
17:55:24 [kulick]
justin: hard to answer that going into this blindly
17:55:30 [kulick]
... i see args on both sides
17:55:39 [kulick]
... some say we already have delay
17:55:45 [kulick]
... this conv is helpful
17:55:47 [WileyS]
David - disagree, how do I test UGE if I don't recognize the MSFT signal in the first place? It would require I honor it to test UGE. Paradox!
17:55:59 [kulick]
... can you put more of this in writing (i.e. the rational)
17:56:04 [wseltzer]
17:56:12 [kulick]
.... chairs will have to talk
17:56:22 [kulick]
shane: who is pushing forward other than matthais
17:56:29 [kulick]
justin: maybe david aslo
17:57:03 [kulick]
wendy: we might be assuming more about the process given the name "l;ast call"
17:57:23 [kulick]
... group is trying to dev specs and learn friom imp process and change as needed fgrom learning
17:57:28 [kulick]
.... and move forward
17:57:35 [Chapell]
Wseltzer, appreciate your point, but learning from the implementation process will take bandwidth from those who are going to implement
17:57:55 [kulick]
... we seperate TPE and TCS and both are needed, so makes sense to have both with basic spec that could be tested
17:58:01 [kulick]
17:58:09 [justin]
ack ws
17:58:11 [Zakim]
17:58:19 [justin]
ninja, you can scribe from this point forward?
17:58:20 [kulick]
... no one is trying to rush
17:58:27 [ninja]
17:58:33 [ninja]
scribenick: ninja
17:58:36 [kulick]
(scribe was "lied to", told this was going to be a short call -- doh! ;)
17:58:39 [WileyS]
Wendy - this misses the point that a W3C TCS may not be required and if it is, we'll have more information to inform that process with TPE implementations achieved
17:58:47 [justin]
ack kulick
17:59:30 [ninja]
kulick: Back in the October poll, one of the arguments for separating was the chance to implement and gain more real-world information.
17:59:55 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
17:59:56 [wseltzer]
[a diagram of the Rec-track process: ]
18:00:00 [Zakim]
18:00:04 [hober]
Zakim, Apple.a has me
18:00:04 [Zakim]
+hober; got it
18:00:07 [Zakim]
18:00:11 [schunter]
Should we move on and discuss this during our chairs call?
18:00:16 [ninja]
justin: Have not revisited the arguments in the poll back then. I think we heard some in this discussion.
18:00:58 [ninja]
kulick: Made the division assuming we had sufficient time to test.
18:01:24 [ninja]
justin: I will take a look at the arguments and the rationale of the moving forward decision.
18:01:29 [justin]
18:01:34 [dsinger]
18:01:53 [Zakim]
18:02:10 [WileyS]
David, That's what we're trying to do with the TPE
18:02:35 [dsinger]
18:02:45 [WileyS]
Intersting that the only people pushing back on the separation are non-implementors
18:02:46 [ninja]
dsinger: The Last Call is formally the status when we have agreed that we have a document we want to try to implement. Delaying the second spec would be taking this process backwards.
18:03:20 [ninja]
justin: We will do a 3 week break and giving people some time to think about/reviewing TPE.
18:03:43 [ninja]
... also time to calm down and think about how/when to take up Compliance.
18:04:06 [Zakim]
18:04:16 [Zakim]
18:04:23 [ninja]
... Thank you everyone for your hard work on TPE. Happy to have it in this almost Last Call status
18:04:26 [schunter]
chairs call?
18:04:29 [Zakim]
18:04:29 [dsinger]
18:04:30 [Zakim]
18:04:32 [Zakim]
18:04:32 [Zakim]
18:04:34 [Zakim]
18:04:37 [Zakim]
18:04:40 [Zakim]
18:04:41 [Zakim]
18:04:42 [Zakim]
18:04:43 [Zakim]
18:04:45 [Zakim]
18:04:46 [Zakim]
18:04:55 [Zakim]
18:04:56 [Zakim]
18:05:01 [Zakim]
18:05:03 [Zakim]
18:05:04 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
18:05:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were hefferjr, Ninja, +1.858.229.aaaa, dsinger, JackHobaugh, WileyS, Fielding, eberkower, +1.323.253.aabb, kulick, Ari, justin, AWK, sidstamm, Wendy, MECallahan,
18:05:04 [Zakim]
... schunter, Chris_Pedigo, SusanIsrael, Chapell, [FTC], LeeTien, [Apple], hober
18:05:16 [wseltzer]
trackbot, end teleconf
18:05:16 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:05:16 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
18:05:24 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:05:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:05:25 [ninja]
rssagent, create minutes
18:05:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:05:25 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
18:05:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
18:05:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:05:44 [wseltzer]
rrsagent, make logs public
18:05:49 [ninja]
thanks wseltzer
18:06:14 [wseltzer]
regrets+ CarlCargill, npdoty
18:06:33 [wseltzer]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:06:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate wseltzer
18:15:05 [jeff]
jeff has joined #dnt
18:28:25 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt
20:32:43 [schunter1]
schunter1 has joined #dnt
20:59:59 [hober]
hober has joined #dnt