See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 26 March 2014
<Dsinger_> Skim, agenda?
<WaltervH> wseltzer: done
<WaltervH> drop the brackets
<WaltervH> Zakim is old and fussy
<WileyS> Would it be appropriate to delay one week rather than do this in two passes?
<scribe> scribe: ninja
<moneill2> Waltervh, thanks Walter
<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.
<npdoty> scribenick: npdoty
justin: goal is to identify serious problems that would affect implementation
… and then move to a period of two weeks for reviewing the document internal to the group before moving to Last Call
<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
wileys: I think we should pause for a week, haven’t heard of moving to Last Call before reviewing the document
justin: definitely take the time next week to walk through the changes a little more to make sure everyone’s on board
<ninja> WileyS: Since the document is not fully settled. Let's have a one week break to give Roy more time to finish it.
<ninja> justin: That's fine with me to dedicate the April 2 call to another walk through with Roy.
<scribe> scribenick: ninja
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: But I think in the meantime there is the opportunity to review the document.
<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
WileyS: Until the document is finished this is like “a shotgun blast in the dark”.
justin: Have the hope that there are no surprises in the document. But I agree with your point.
<WileyS> Starting when? Ending June 18th.
<rvaneijk> June 18 works for me.
justin: 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.
<Dsinger_> The public
dwainberg: Still concerned that 9 weeks is not enough.
<Dsinger_> If someone makes a cogent case for needing more time I am sure we will listen
dwainberg: Smaller companies and number of stakeholders may take longer.
<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
<npdoty> … we should try to work together on doing that outreach in a coordinated way
npdoty: Want to follow up on dwainbergs point of multiple stakeholders. How can we reach out to them to get commitments?
<moneill2> lifes too short to wait forever
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.
dwainberg: 9weeks may seem a long time for you. But for smaller companies it may be unfeasible.
<Chris_IAB> Just joined via a private #
justin: I don't fully follow
these arguments. The TPE spec is not that technically
sophisticated (apologies to Roy and David).
... We are not inclined to make it an longer period.
<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
dwanberg: would like to know W3C's plan to reach out to these stakeholders. What will the process be? How will comments be evaluated?
npdoty: Can speak about the first
one. W3C does usually some press work publishing in blogs.
Trying to get press coverage.
... Apart from this we can reach out other Working Groups.
<npdoty> other WGs are also listed in the Charter that we should reach out to
justin: dwainberg, do you have more suggestions for stakeholders or groups?
dwainberg: happy to work together with the w3c team.
<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
Carl: When we receive comments it's usually similar to handling comment within the working group. Depends on whether they are substantive, technical etc.
<Chris_IAB> agree with David W, no matter how many time you say "it's a technical specification"
<dsinger> we moved policy to compliance.
<WileyS> Its a technical specification with policy implications
<npdoty> often we get confused when we say words like “policy” and mean different things by them
<WaltervH> WileyS: the policy implications stand or fall with the compliance spec adhered to
<Chris_IAB> and enters, "THE SLIPPERY SLOPE" previously referenced
<Brooks> communicating a policy choice through a 1 or 0 is more of a policy issue than a technical issue
dwainberg: It's also a policy document so we should be able to receive policy arguments and objections.
<Chapell> It became a policy specification the moment that the definition of "tracking" was introduced into the document.
<WileyS> WaltervH: I don't disagree
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.
<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
<Chris_IAB> +1 to David W
<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
dwainberg: Would like to know beforehand what comments will be considered.
<Chris_IAB> and how is are comments evaluated? what are the criteria? this is a fair question
dwainberg: Guidelines would be appreciated.
Carl: We ask for comments. So all comments will be read and considered.
<Chris_IAB> npdoty, is this well documented at W3C?
<Chris_IAB> npdoty, I think that's only PART of what David W is asking about
npdoty: Biggest thing with regard to guidelines is to point to existing issues that we have discussed and decisions we already made.
<Chris_IAB> guidelines for comments, 1, and 2: how are comments going to be evaluated and implemented against the draft?
npdoty: Saying we are looking for arguments we have not considered.
<dsinger> the entire spec is open for public comment
<Chris_IAB> dsinger, for us W3C "newbies", is this documented?
<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
<npdoty> Chris_IAB, I’ll help find the documentation, one sec
dwainberg: Would arguments and comments for closed issues be water under the bridge?
<Chris_IAB> well, actually, depending on who it doesn't work for, that's actually pretty important information to consider
<Chris_IAB> groups that are marginalized
<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?
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.
<dsinger> see http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#last-call
I think we are over complicating things.
<Chris_IAB> so the comments must be constructive, to fix the spec?
dsinger: If we get unspecific comments there is not much we can do. Specificity is crucial and the whole spec is open for comments.
<npdoty> typically, we would expect feedback from implementations at CR (Call for Implementations), right, dsinger?
justin: Comments also should be constructive. But personally want to hear a broad range of comments.
dwainberg: So all comment specific and constructive will get considered?
<npdoty> we must consider and respond to all the comments. constructive and specific ones will typically be more useful
justin: We will even look at the unspecific, but the more specific and constructive comments are the more weight they will have.
<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
<npdoty> again, I think we are required to consider and respond to all comments, even the non-specific, non-constructive ones
<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
<npdoty> thx, dsinger
dwainberg: How do we ask for and receive comments?
npdoty: We will ask for them in the Last Call announcement and point to a mailing list
dwainberg: Is there a need to register?
<npdoty> we will have a separate, publicly archived mailing list announced in the Last Call
npdoty: They will need to give permission for publication
<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
<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)
<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?
<npdoty> Chris_IAB: need to have a fair set of game rules, for how comments will be evaluated
justin: Add a paragraph to Last Call how to send in comments. Will discuss this among Chairs and team.
<fielding> JackHobaugh, yes.
<Chris_IAB> thank you Justin
justin: adding guidance how we will deal with comments, criteria.
<npdoty> +1 on not always enjoying walkthroughs
fielding: Would prefer to push it to next week.
<npdoty> might have a question during review, but will send to mailing list
justin: WG asked for walk through. So we will do it next week.
moneill2: Azure storage uses the conflict signal a lot. Would like to ask Roy if he considered it.
<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
<dsinger> problem; however, that might not be possible and is not required."
<WaltervH> Now that is a sound that you hear rarely nowadays
fielding: Don't consider it a big issue. Unless there are interoperability concerns I don't think there is a need to make changes
<eberkower> dial up modem?
<WaltervH> It was a trip down memory lane
fielding: dropped in the middle of the sentence. Modem beeps.
<fielding> sorry, my mfc has a mind of its own
<fielding> right, the last call means we are calling for comments, hence we get them after
<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.
justin: Will send out a revised timeline/process announcement to the mailing list
<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...!
justin: Please bring your concerns for TPE up as soon as possible. Before or after the walk through next week.
<fielding> and thanks to adrianba for getting the first comment in -- will fix.
dwainberg: when will we receive the explanations for context definition?
justin: That's all on me. Definitely before my vacation. This week.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: ninja Inferring ScribeNick: ninja Found ScribeNick: npdoty Found ScribeNick: ninja ScribeNicks: ninja, npdoty Default Present: npdoty, dsinger, Ninja, WaltMichel, dwainberg, +1.202.785.aaaa, JackHobaugh, hefferjr, WaltervH, +1.323.253.aabb, sidstamm, WileyS, justin, +1.415.520.aacc, Ari_rocketfuel, MattHayes, rvaneijk, moneill2, eberkower, [Microsoft], Peder_Magee, vincent, Chris_Pedigo, +1.202.370.aadd, robsherman, schunter, adrianba, [FTC], Brooks, Susan_Israel, Carl_Cargill, Ari, Chris_IAB, Chapell, Fielding Present: npdoty dsinger Ninja WaltMichel dwainberg +1.202.785.aaaa JackHobaugh hefferjr WaltervH +1.323.253.aabb sidstamm WileyS justin +1.415.520.aacc Ari_rocketfuel MattHayes rvaneijk moneill2 eberkower [Microsoft] Peder_Magee vincent Chris_Pedigo +1.202.370.aadd robsherman schunter adrianba [FTC] Brooks Susan_Israel Carl_Cargill Ari Chris_IAB Chapell Fielding Regrets: Bryan Sullivan; John Simpson; Lee Tien; Brad Kulick Found Date: 26 Mar 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/03/26-dnt-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]