IRC log of dnt on 2014-03-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:14:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:14:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:14:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:14:28 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:14:28 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 46 minutes
15:14:29 [trackbot]
Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:14:29 [trackbot]
Date: 26 March 2014
15:15:31 [ninja]
Regrets: Bryan Sullivan; John Simpson; Lee Tien; Brad Kulick
15:49:39 [ninja]
Chairs: Justin Brookman; Carl Cargill; Matthias Schunter
15:52:55 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #dnt
15:56:10 [JackHobaugh]
JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:56:22 [Dsinger_]
Dsinger_ has joined #dnt
15:57:05 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:57:12 [Zakim]
15:57:13 [Zakim]
15:57:30 [ninja]
zakim, call ninja-mobile
15:57:30 [Zakim]
ok, ninja; the call is being made
15:57:31 [Zakim]
15:57:46 [dwainberg]
dwainberg has joined #dnt
15:57:49 [Zakim]
15:58:12 [Dsinger_]
Skim, agenda?
15:58:23 [ninja]
15:58:23 [Dsinger_]
Zakim, agenda?
15:58:25 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:58:25 [Zakim]
1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome! [from ninja]
15:58:26 [Zakim]
2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
15:58:27 [Zakim]
3. Timeline to get TPE to Last Call (update) [from ninja]
15:58:27 [Zakim]
4. Review of the TPE Editor's draft [from ninja]
15:58:27 [Zakim]
5. AoB [from ninja]
15:58:27 [Zakim]
15:58:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.785.aaaa
15:59:00 [JackHobaugh]
Zakim, aaaa is JackHobaugh
15:59:00 [Zakim]
+JackHobaugh; got it
15:59:54 [Dsinger_]
Zakim, who is here?
15:59:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, dsinger, Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, JackHobaugh
15:59:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dwainberg, Dsinger_, JackHobaugh, npdoty, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, schunter, hober, walter, wseltzer, trackbot
15:59:59 [moneill2]
moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:00:02 [Zakim]
16:00:09 [Zakim]
16:00:32 [Zakim]
16:00:34 [WaltervH]
WaltervH has joined #dnt
16:00:38 [sidstamm]
sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:00:42 [WaltervH]
zakim, ipcaller is me
16:00:42 [Zakim]
+WaltervH; got it
16:00:45 [justin]
justin has joined #dnt
16:00:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.323.253.aabb
16:00:50 [sidstamm]
Zakim, Mozilla has me
16:00:50 [Zakim]
+sidstamm; got it
16:00:57 [WaltervH]
wseltzer: done
16:00:58 [rvaneijk]
rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:01:02 [WileyS]
WileyS has joined #dnt
16:01:38 [ninja]
zakim, who is here?
16:01:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see npdoty, dsinger, Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, JackHobaugh, hefferjr, WaltervH, [Mozilla], +1.323.253.aabb
16:01:40 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:01:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see WileyS, rvaneijk, justin, sidstamm, WaltervH, moneill2, dwainberg, Dsinger_, JackHobaugh, npdoty, RRSAgent, Zakim, ninja, schunter, hober, walter, wseltzer, trackbot
16:01:40 [Zakim]
16:01:40 [Zakim]
16:01:51 [matt]
matt has joined #dnt
16:01:54 [eberkower]
eberkower has joined #dnt
16:01:54 [justin]
zakim, cdt has me
16:01:54 [Zakim]
+justin; got it
16:02:06 [npdoty]
Zakim, aabb is Ari_rocketfuel
16:02:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.520.aacc
16:02:07 [Zakim]
+Ari_rocketfuel; got it
16:02:08 [Zakim]
16:02:10 [Zakim]
16:02:11 [moneill2]
zakim,[ IPCaller] is me
16:02:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand '[ IPCaller] is me', moneill2
16:02:15 [Zakim]
16:02:26 [npdoty]
Zakim, [ipcaller] is moneill2
16:02:26 [Zakim]
+moneill2; got it
16:02:26 [moneill2]
zakim, [IPCaller] is me
16:02:27 [Zakim]
sorry, moneill2, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
16:02:37 [WaltervH]
drop the brackets
16:02:46 [WaltervH]
Zakim is old and fussy
16:02:50 [vincent]
vincent has joined #dnt
16:02:58 [WaltervH]
zakim, ipcaller is moneill2
16:02:58 [Zakim]
sorry, WaltervH, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcaller'
16:02:59 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 1
16:02:59 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome!" taken up [from ninja]
16:03:11 [WaltervH]
zakim, IPcaller is moneill2
16:03:11 [Zakim]
sorry, WaltervH, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
16:03:25 [WileyS]
Would it be appropriate to delay one week rather than do this in two passes?
16:03:26 [Zakim]
16:03:35 [ninja]
scribe: ninja
16:03:36 [eberkower]
Zakim, please mute me
16:03:36 [Zakim]
eberkower should now be muted
16:04:08 [Zakim]
16:04:10 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 3
16:04:10 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Timeline to get TPE to Last Call (update)" taken up [from ninja]
16:04:19 [moneill2]
Waltervh, thanks Walter
16:04:20 [Zakim]
16:04:28 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #dnt
16:04:39 [WileyS]
Justin, I feel it would be appropriate to wait for the all of the edits to be complete and then do the review before moving forward. We shouldn't be slaves to the schedule when these types of issues occur.
16:04:41 [amyc]
amyc has joined #dnt
16:04:41 [Zakim]
16:04:42 [npdoty]
scribenick: npdoty
16:04:43 [robsherman]
robsherman has joined #dnt
16:04:44 [Zakim]
16:04:47 [Zakim]
16:04:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.370.aadd
16:04:56 [robsherman]
zakim, aadd is robsherman
16:04:56 [Zakim]
+robsherman; got it
16:04:59 [schunter]
Zakim, ??P63 is schunter
16:04:59 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:05:06 [WileyS]
16:05:08 [npdoty]
justin: goal is to identify serious problems that would affect implementation
16:05:19 [kj]
kj has joined #dnt
16:05:20 [ChrisPedigoOPA]
ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:05:20 [Zakim]
16:05:37 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:05:37 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:05:47 [npdoty]
… and then move to a period of two weeks for reviewing the document internal to the group before moving to Last Call
16:06:09 [Zakim]
16:06:09 [ninja]
justin: Received apologies from Roy. Suggestion is to review the document via mailing list. And in this call. Starting from April 2 we will have a phase where you could raise objections to Last Call
16:06:10 [npdoty]
wileys: I think we should pause for a week, haven’t heard of moving to Last Call before reviewing the document
16:06:32 [npdoty]
justin: definitely take the time next week to walk through the changes a little more to make sure everyone’s on board
16:06:41 [Brooks]
Brooks has joined #dnt
16:06:53 [ninja]
WileyS: Since the document is not fully settled. Let's have a one week break to give Roy more time to finish it.
16:07:21 [Zakim]
16:07:25 [ninja]
justin: That's fine with me to dedicate the April 2 call to another walk through with Roy.
16:07:42 [npdoty]
scribenick: ninja
16:08:00 [ninja]
... But I think in the meantime there is the opportunity to review the document.
16:08:36 [Dsinger_]
I believe any remaining edits are editorial, so I encourage people to start reading. Not to diminish the importance of the walk through, but we don't need to wait for it
16:08:38 [ninja]
WileyS: Until the document is finished this is like “a shotgun blast in the dark”.
16:08:47 [Zakim]
16:09:05 [ninja]
justin: Have the hope that there are no surprises in the document. But I agree with your point.
16:09:27 [Zakim]
16:09:49 [WileyS]
Starting when? Ending June 18th.
16:09:56 [dwainberg]
16:09:59 [WileyS]
16:10:01 [rvaneijk]
June 18 works for me.
16:10:05 [WaltMichel]
WaltMichel has joined #DNT
16:10:08 [ninja]
... Chairs have also listened to the concerns raised on the mailing list regarding the review period. We decided to have a longer period of nine weeks. Plan to end the 9 weeks review period on June 18.
16:10:14 [npdoty]
ack dwainberg
16:10:17 [Zakim]
16:10:34 [Dsinger_]
The public
16:10:36 [susanisrael]
susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:10:42 [ninja]
dwainberg: Still concerned that 9 weeks is not enough.
16:11:04 [Dsinger_]
If someone makes a cogent case for needing more time I am sure we will listen
16:11:11 [ninja]
... Smaller companies and number of stakeholders may take longer.
16:11:17 [npdoty]
16:11:22 [ninja]
16:11:53 [justin]
ack npd
16:12:32 [justin]
ack ninja
16:13:10 [npdoty]
npdoty: important with public wider review for us to try to identify those people, groups not in the WG we want to hear from
16:13:18 [Zakim]
16:13:22 [npdoty]
… we should try to work together on doing that outreach in a coordinated way
16:13:32 [ninja]
npdoty: Want to follow up on dwainbergs point of multiple stakeholders. How can we reach out to them to get commitments?
16:13:47 [Zakim]
16:13:59 [Chris_IAB]
Chris_IAB has joined #dnt
16:14:10 [moneill2]
lifes too short to wait forever
16:14:10 [Zakim]
16:14:17 [Ari]
Ari has joined #dnt
16:14:20 [Zakim]
16:14:25 [ninja]
ninja: 9 weeks is as long as HTML 5. Should be a long enough timeframe for companies and organizations to reach out to us and tell us that 9 weeks is not enough for them.
16:14:26 [Zakim]
16:15:08 [ninja]
dwainberg: 9weeks may seem a long time for you. But for smaller companies it may be unfeasible.
16:15:09 [Zakim]
16:15:21 [Chris_IAB]
Just joined via a private #
16:15:52 [ninja]
justin: I don't fully follow these arguments. The TPE spec is not that technically sophisticated (apologies to Roy and David).
16:16:05 [ninja]
... We are not inclined to make it an longer period.
16:16:08 [dsinger]
dsinger has joined #dnt
16:16:10 [npdoty]
I think it will definitely be a challenge to get good feedback from different groups, like smaller companies; I’m not sure having several more weeks will be that helpful to them
16:16:35 [justin]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:16:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see dsinger, Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, JackHobaugh, hefferjr, WaltervH, [Mozilla], WileyS, [CDT], +1.415.520.aacc, moneill2, MattHayes, eberkower (muted),
16:16:38 [Zakim]
... [Microsoft], Peder_Magee, schunter, vincent, Chris_Pedigo, robsherman, adrianba, [FTC], Brooks, rvaneijk, Susan_Israel, Carl_Cargill, npdoty, Ari.a, ??P0
16:16:38 [Zakim]
[CDT] has justin
16:16:38 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:16:38 [Zakim]
16:16:43 [Zakim]
16:16:46 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??p0 is Chris_IAB
16:16:46 [Zakim]
+Chris_IAB; got it
16:16:55 [dsinger]
zakim, [apple] has dsinger
16:16:55 [Zakim]
+dsinger; got it
16:17:13 [ninja]
dwanberg: would like to know W3C's plan to reach out to these stakeholders. What will the process be? How will comments be evaluated?
16:17:36 [Chapell]
Chapell has joined #DNT
16:17:40 [npdoty]
16:17:41 [ninja]
16:17:49 [justin]
ack npd
16:18:38 [ninja]
npdoty: Can speak about the first one. W3C does usually some press work publishing in blogs. Trying to get press coverage.
16:19:04 [Zakim]
16:19:05 [ninja]
... Apart from this we can reach out other Working Groups.
16:19:26 [npdoty]
other WGs are also listed in the Charter that we should reach out to
16:19:44 [ninja]
justin: dwainberg, do you have more suggestions for stakeholders or groups?
16:19:58 [ninja]
dwainberg: happy to work together with the w3c team.
16:20:26 [npdoty]
w3c staff will certainly help, but I think it’s up to the whole WG to actually reach all the people we’d like
16:21:32 [Zakim]
16:22:05 [ninja]
Carl: When we receive comments it's usually similar to handling comment within the working group. Depends on whether they are substantive, technical etc.
16:22:06 [Chris_IAB]
agree with David W, no matter how many time you say "it's a technical specification"
16:22:27 [dsinger]
we moved policy to compliance.
16:22:28 [WileyS]
Its a technical specification with policy implications
16:22:31 [ninja]
16:22:42 [npdoty]
often we get confused when we say words like “policy” and mean different things by them
16:22:59 [WaltervH]
WileyS: the policy implications stand or fall with the compliance spec adhered to
16:23:04 [Chris_IAB]
and enters, "THE SLIPPERY SLOPE" previously referenced
16:23:07 [Brooks]
communicating a policy choice through a 1 or 0 is more of a policy issue than a technical issue
16:23:11 [ninja]
dwainberg: It's also a policy document so we should be able to receive policy arguments and objections.
16:23:14 [Chapell]
It became a policy specification the moment that the definition of "tracking" was introduced into the document.
16:23:21 [WileyS]
WaltervH: I don't disagree
16:24:00 [ninja]
Carl: We don't rule out any arguments but this is a technical specification in first place. Technical objections will be asked for in the review.
16:24:04 [WaltervH]
Chapell: even if I would agree with that, you can still say in a compliance spec: under these and these circumstances and to this extent I am honouring your '1' signal
16:24:30 [Chris_IAB]
+1 to David W
16:24:42 [WaltervH]
Chapell: you can even have a compliance spec that says: regardless of what you wish, I'll do what I like with your tracking data
16:24:54 [ninja]
dwainberg: Would like to know beforehand what comments will be considered.
16:24:55 [npdoty]
16:25:00 [Chris_IAB]
and how is are comments evaluated? what are the criteria? this is a fair question
16:25:11 [ninja]
... Guidelines would be appreciated.
16:25:25 [justin]
ack npd
16:25:45 [Zakim]
16:25:56 [ninja]
Carl: We ask for comments. So all comments will be read and considered.
16:26:08 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, is this well documented at W3C?
16:26:26 [Chris_IAB]
npdoty, I think that's only PART of what David W is asking about
16:26:43 [ninja]
npdoty: Biggest thing with regard to guidelines is to point to existing issues that we have discussed and decisions we already made.
16:26:53 [Chris_IAB]
guidelines for comments, 1, and 2: how are comments going to be evaluated and implemented against the draft?
16:27:02 [ninja]
... Saying we are looking for arguments we have not considered.
16:27:09 [dsinger]
the entire spec is open for public comment
16:27:40 [Chris_IAB]
dsinger, for us W3C "newbies", is this documented?
16:27:42 [Chapell]
When this is intentional or not, Carl's comments can be interpreted in such a way as to exclude comments that the chairs feel are irrelevent. If that's the case, it seems reasonable to ask the chairs to flesh out what is (or is not) relevant
16:27:45 [dsinger]
16:27:49 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB, I’ll help find the documentation, one sec
16:27:50 [ninja]
dwainberg: Would arguments and comments for closed issues be water under the bridge?
16:28:20 [Chris_IAB]
well, actually, depending on who it doesn't work for, that's actually pretty important information to consider
16:28:25 [Chris_IAB]
groups that are marginalized
16:28:30 [JackHobaugh]
Regarding Mr. Doty’s statement that the whole WG wll respond to public comments, will that response be through a WG consensus reached through the least strong objection process?
16:28:31 [ninja]
Carl: Depends on quality of the comment: “I don't like this. Does not work for me” would be a weak comment without much impact.
16:28:35 [dsinger]
16:28:51 [ninja]
I think we are over complicating things.
16:28:56 [justin]
ack ds
16:29:20 [Chris_IAB]
so the comments must be constructive, to fix the spec?
16:29:32 [ninja]
dsinger: If we get unspecific comments there is not much we can do. Specificity is crucial and the whole spec is open for comments.
16:30:31 [npdoty]
typically, we would expect feedback from implementations at CR (Call for Implementations), right, dsinger?
16:30:54 [ninja]
justin: Comments also should be constructive. But personally want to hear a broad range of comments.
16:31:28 [carl]
carl has joined #dnt
16:31:36 [ninja]
dwainberg: So all comment specific and constructive will get considered?
16:31:49 [npdoty]
we must consider and respond to all the comments. constructive and specific ones will typically be more useful
16:31:56 [Zakim]
16:32:22 [ninja]
justin: We will even look at the unspecific, but the more specific and constructive comments are the more weight they will have.
16:32:28 [Chris_IAB]
what would be great, is if the co-chairs and staff issued a "criteria for evaluation of public comments" document PRIOR to public comment
16:32:31 [Zakim]
16:32:46 [justin]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:32:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, JackHobaugh, hefferjr, WaltervH, [Mozilla], WileyS, [CDT], +1.415.520.aacc, moneill2, MattHayes, eberkower (muted), [Microsoft],
16:32:47 [adrianba]
zakim, ??P2 is me
16:32:49 [Zakim]
... Peder_Magee, vincent, Chris_Pedigo, robsherman, [FTC], Brooks, rvaneijk, Susan_Israel, Carl_Cargill, npdoty, Ari.a, Chris_IAB, [Apple], Chapell, ??P13, ??P2
16:32:49 [Zakim]
[CDT] has justin
16:32:49 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:32:49 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:32:49 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:32:50 [npdoty]
again, I think we are required to consider and respond to all comments, even the non-specific, non-constructive ones
16:33:02 [dsinger]
yes, we would normally expect *implementation* feedback in the CR process. But if someone says "we think there is a problem here but we need to write some software to work it out", that's not unreasonable. Software-experiments-analysis
16:33:13 [npdoty]
thx, dsinger
16:33:25 [npdoty]
Zakim, ??p13 is schunter
16:33:25 [Zakim]
+schunter; got it
16:33:52 [npdoty]
Zakim, drop aacc
16:33:52 [Zakim]
+1.415.520.aacc is being disconnected
16:33:52 [Zakim]
- +1.415.520.aacc
16:34:05 [Chris_IAB]
16:34:43 [ninja]
dwainberg: How do we ask for and receive comments?
16:35:15 [ninja]
npdoty: We will ask for them in the Last Call announcement and point to a mailing list
16:35:27 [ninja]
dwainberg: Is there a need to register?
16:35:32 [justin]
ack chris
16:35:36 [npdoty]
we will have a separate, publicly archived mailing list announced in the Last Call
16:36:06 [ninja]
npdoty: They will need to give permission for publication
16:36:12 [ninja]
16:36:17 [npdoty]
we can use a separate product in the Tracker or other tool to manage comments so that we’re sure to give responses to all
16:36:42 [justin]
ack ninja
16:37:01 [npdoty]
commenters don’t need to subscribe to a mailing list or sign-up, but will have to give permission to publicly archive their messages (as with all our public mailing lists)
16:37:20 [fielding]
fielding has joined #dnt
16:37:40 [Zakim]
16:38:11 [JackHobaugh]
My understanding is that the entire TPE will be on the table for public comment and that the TPWG will respond to public comments in the same manner the TPWG worked through TPE documented issues. Is that correct?
16:38:24 [npdoty]
Chris_IAB: need to have a fair set of game rules, for how comments will be evaluated
16:38:27 [ninja]
justin: Add a paragraph to Last Call how to send in comments. Will discuss this among Chairs and team.
16:38:39 [fielding]
JackHobaugh, yes.
16:38:55 [Chris_IAB]
thank you Justin
16:39:05 [ninja]
... adding guidance how we will deal with comments, criteria.
16:39:16 [Zakim]
16:39:29 [npdoty]
+1 on not always enjoying walkthroughs
16:39:33 [ninja]
zakim, take up agendum 4
16:39:33 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Review of the TPE Editor's draft" taken up [from ninja]
16:39:47 [Zakim]
16:39:49 [ninja]
fielding: Would prefer to push it to next week.
16:39:49 [moneill2]
16:39:56 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:39:56 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:39:57 [justin]
ack mo
16:40:11 [npdoty]
might have a question during review, but will send to mailing list
16:40:16 [ninja]
justin: WG asked for walk through. So we will do it next week.
16:40:44 [justin]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:40:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, JackHobaugh, hefferjr, WaltervH, [Mozilla], WileyS, [CDT], moneill2, MattHayes, eberkower (muted), [Microsoft], Peder_Magee,
16:40:47 [Zakim]
... vincent, Chris_Pedigo, robsherman, [FTC], Brooks, rvaneijk, Susan_Israel, Carl_Cargill, npdoty, Ari.a, Chris_IAB, [Apple], Chapell, schunter, Fielding, adrianba
16:40:47 [Zakim]
[CDT] has justin
16:40:47 [Zakim]
[Apple] has dsinger
16:40:47 [Zakim]
[Mozilla] has sidstamm
16:41:18 [ninja]
moneill2: Azure storage uses the conflict signal a lot. Would like to ask Roy if he considered it.
16:41:43 [dsinger]
409 reads about right to me "The request could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource. This code is only allowed in situations where it is expected that the user might be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The response body SHOULD include enough information for the user to recognize the source of the conflict. Ideally, the response entity would include enough information for the user or user agent to fix the
16:41:43 [dsinger]
problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required."
16:42:30 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:42:36 [dsinger]
zakim, who is making noise?
16:42:41 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: WileyS (40%), Brooks (16%), dwainberg (9%), JackHobaugh (14%), moneill2 (25%), Fielding (39%), Carl_Cargill (4%)
16:42:43 [WaltervH]
Now that is a sound that you hear rarely nowadays
16:42:46 [ninja]
fielding: Don't consider it a big issue. Unless there are interoperability concerns I don't think there is a need to make changes
16:42:50 [eberkower]
dial up modem?
16:42:51 [Zakim]
dsinger, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dwainberg (34%), [CDT] (4%), Fielding (34%), Carl_Cargill (18%)
16:43:15 [WaltervH]
It was a trip down memory lane
16:43:21 [Chris_IAB_]
Chris_IAB_ has joined #dnt
16:43:38 [ninja]
fielding: dropped in the middle of the sentence. Modem beeps.
16:43:45 [justin]
16:44:09 [npdoty]
Zakim, who is making noise?
16:44:15 [fielding]
sorry, my mfc has a mind of its own
16:44:21 [Zakim]
npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Brooks (63%), [CDT] (77%)
16:44:24 [Zakim]
16:44:51 [Zakim]
16:45:15 [fielding]
right, the last call means we are calling for comments, hence we get them after
16:46:51 [fielding]
and if anyone has comments during this week, PLEASE send them to the mailing list right away -- there is no need for the WG to wait.
16:47:17 [ninja]
justin: Will send out a revised timeline/process announcement to the mailing list
16:47:32 [dsinger]
start reading now, and start alerting people outside that it's time to start getting stuck in. don't wait for the walk-through or the formal LC call...!
16:47:49 [justin]
16:47:52 [ninja]
... Please bring your concerns for TPE up as soon as possible. Before or after the walk through next week.
16:47:53 [fielding]
and thanks to adrianba for getting the first comment in -- will fix.
16:48:36 [justin]
16:49:30 [Zakim]
16:49:31 [ninja]
dwainberg: when will we receive the explanations for context definition?
16:49:44 [Zakim]
16:49:45 [Zakim]
16:49:46 [npdoty]
16:49:46 [Zakim]
16:49:47 [Zakim]
16:49:47 [Zakim]
16:49:47 [Zakim]
16:49:48 [Zakim]
16:49:48 [Zakim]
16:49:48 [Zakim]
16:49:48 [Zakim]
16:49:48 [Zakim]
16:49:49 [Zakim]
16:49:49 [Zakim]
16:49:50 [npdoty]
Zakim, list attendees
16:49:50 [Zakim]
16:49:50 [Zakim]
16:49:50 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been npdoty, dsinger, Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, +1.202.785.aaaa, JackHobaugh, hefferjr, WaltervH, +1.323.253.aabb, sidstamm, WileyS, justin,
16:49:50 [Zakim]
... +1.415.520.aacc, Ari_rocketfuel, MattHayes, rvaneijk, moneill2, eberkower, [Microsoft], Peder_Magee, vincent, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.370.aadd, robsherman, schunter, adrianba,
16:49:51 [Zakim]
... [FTC], Brooks, Susan_Israel, Carl_Cargill, Ari, Chris_IAB, Chapell, Fielding
16:49:52 [Zakim]
16:49:52 [Zakim]
16:49:52 [Zakim]
16:49:52 [Zakim]
16:49:53 [ninja]
justin: That's all on me. Definitely before my vacation. This week.
16:49:54 [Zakim]
16:49:54 [Zakim]
16:49:56 [Zakim]
16:49:58 [npdoty]
rrsagent, please draft the minutes
16:49:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate npdoty
16:50:01 [Zakim]
16:50:08 [Zakim]
16:50:12 [Zakim]
16:50:13 [Zakim]
16:50:20 [Zakim]
16:50:23 [Zakim]
16:56:07 [Zakim]
16:56:08 [Zakim]
T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
16:56:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were npdoty, dsinger, Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, +1.202.785.aaaa, JackHobaugh, hefferjr, WaltervH, +1.323.253.aabb, sidstamm, WileyS, justin, +1.415.520.aacc,
16:56:08 [Zakim]
... Ari_rocketfuel, MattHayes, rvaneijk, moneill2, eberkower, [Microsoft], Peder_Magee, vincent, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.370.aadd, robsherman, schunter, adrianba, [FTC], Brooks,
16:56:09 [Zakim]
... Susan_Israel, Carl_Cargill, Ari, Chris_IAB, Chapell, Fielding
17:04:08 [robsherman]
robsherman has left #dnt
17:25:42 [schunter]
schunter has joined #dnt