15:38:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dnt
15:38:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/04/30-dnt-irc
15:38:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:38:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:38:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
15:38:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:38:23 <trackbot> Date: 30 April 2014
15:38:51 <ninja> chairs: justin, carl
15:39:10 <ninja> regrets: fielding, WileyS, ninja, schunter
15:41:31 <jeff> jeff has joined #dnt
15:54:51 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #dnt
15:55:52 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has now started
15:55:59 <Zakim> +Jeff
15:56:27 <Zakim> +npdoty
15:56:34 <npdoty> trackbot, start meeting
15:56:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be TRACK
15:56:38 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM already started
15:56:39 <trackbot> Meeting: Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference
15:56:39 <trackbot> Date: 30 April 2014
15:56:45 <npdoty> regrets+ WileyS
15:56:48 <npdoty> regrets+ fielding
15:56:52 <justin> justin has joined #dnt
15:56:59 <npdoty> regrets+ ninja
15:57:17 <JackHobaugh> JackHobaugh has joined #dnt
15:57:58 <eberkower> eberkower has joined #dnt
15:58:11 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #dnt
15:58:38 <Zakim> +[Apple]
15:58:54 <dsinger> zakim, [apple] has dsinger
15:58:54 <Zakim> +dsinger; got it
15:59:03 <Zakim> +hefferjr
15:59:05 <dsinger> zakim, agenda?
15:59:05 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
15:59:06 <Zakim> 1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome! [from ninja]
15:59:06 <Zakim> 2. Offline-caller-identification [from ninja]
15:59:06 <Zakim> 3. ISSUE-207: Conditions for dis-regarding (or not) DNT signals [from ninja]
15:59:06 <Zakim> 4. Unknowing and short time data retention, ISSUE-134 and ISSUE-208 [from ninja]
15:59:06 <Zakim> 5. User agent compliance [from ninja]
15:59:14 <dsinger> zakim, who is here?
15:59:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jeff, npdoty, [Apple], hefferjr
15:59:16 <Zakim> [Apple] has dsinger
15:59:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see dsinger, eberkower, JackHobaugh, justin, npdoty, jeff, RRSAgent, walter, Zakim, trackbot, wseltzer, hober
15:59:18 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:27 <walter> zakim, [ipcaller] is me
15:59:27 <Zakim> +walter; got it
15:59:42 <Zakim> +Jack_Hobaugh
15:59:52 <Ari> Ari has joined #dnt
16:00:01 <Zakim> + +1.650.480.aaaa
16:00:15 <npdoty> chair: justin
16:00:26 <Ari> 650.480 is Ari from Rocket Feul
16:00:35 <npdoty> Zakim, aaaa is Ari
16:00:36 <Zakim> +Ari; got it
16:00:39 <Zakim> +eberkower
16:00:53 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me please
16:00:53 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:01:06 <Zakim> +Carl_Cargill
16:01:16 <Zakim> +WSeltzer
16:01:36 <Carl_Cargill> Carl_Cargill has joined #dnt
16:01:37 <Zakim> -eberkower
16:01:52 <sidstamm> sidstamm has joined #dnt
16:01:55 <npdoty> scribenick: jeff
16:02:03 <Zakim> + +aabb
16:02:08 <sidstamm> Zakim, aabb is Mozilla
16:02:08 <Zakim> +Mozilla; got it
16:02:10 <moneill2> moneill2 has joined #dnt
16:02:19 <sidstamm> Zakim, mozilla has me
16:02:19 <Zakim> +sidstamm; got it
16:02:20 <Zakim> +justin
16:02:30 <Zakim> +Chris_Pedigo
16:02:47 <jeff> Justin: Let's start
16:02:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:55 <jeff> ... 3 agenda items
16:02:55 <sidstamm> what "number"?
16:03:06 <jeff> ... 1. Conditions for disregard signal
16:03:06 <moneill2> zakim, [ipcaller] is me
16:03:06 <Zakim> +moneill2; got it
16:03:11 <Chapell> Chapell has joined #DNT
16:03:13 <sidstamm> oh, looks like our PBX chose sip instead of pots
16:03:13 <robsherman> robsherman has joined #dnt
16:03:21 <Zakim> +robsherman
16:03:26 <jeff> ... Background: TPE allows disregard to convey to UA that you will not honor signal
16:03:47 <jeff> ... Rob and Mike have argued that UA needs more info
16:03:51 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Disregarding
16:03:54 <jeff> ... they've merged their text proposal
16:04:04 <jeff> ... party MUST provide the SPECIFIC reason
16:04:13 <jeff> ... easily discoverable
16:04:29 <kulick> kulick has joined #dnt
16:04:29 <jeff> ... servers should implement so could be understood by UA
16:04:46 <Brooks> Brooks has joined #dnt
16:04:47 <jeff> ... Mike, how are you imagining this
16:04:51 <Zakim> +Brooks
16:04:57 <rvaneijk> rvaneijk has joined #dnt
16:05:07 <jeff> Mike: When server returns status w tracking resource
16:05:11 <Zakim> +rvaneijk
16:05:11 <Zakim> +kulick
16:05:15 <jeff> ... how does user find element in privacy policy
16:05:23 <jeff> ... to explain disregard
16:05:35 <jeff> ... this makes clear that what the specific reason is
16:05:41 <justin> q?
16:05:42 <jeff> ... should be stated in privacy policy
16:05:53 <jeff> ... but 3rd party elements don't know enough to appreciate this
16:06:21 <jeff> ... in TPE can connect with reason for tracking resource
16:06:26 <Zakim> +eberkower
16:06:30 <jeff> ... here it is a MAY, with some non-normative text
16:06:45 <eberkower> Zakim mute me please
16:06:50 <jeff> Justin: If a server has D for 3 scenarios, how does a user know which case it is?
16:07:12 <jeff> Mike: The User Agent has a User I/F to make it clear
16:07:16 <eberkower> Zakim, mute me, please
16:07:16 <Zakim> eberkower should now be muted
16:07:22 <jeff> ... non-normative reqt.
16:07:36 <npdoty> q+
16:07:43 <jeff> ... so UA has to pass signal somehow
16:07:49 <jeff> ... what does D signal mean
16:07:56 <justin> ack npd
16:08:13 <jeff> Nick: TPE has a series of fields
16:08:35 <jeff> ... policy property and @@ property to give user more control
16:08:35 <vincent> vincent has joined #dnt
16:08:47 <jeff> ... server w disregard signal can fill in one of those properties
16:08:53 <jeff> ... that could be an implementation approach
16:08:54 <npdoty> s/@@/config/
16:08:58 <Zakim> +Chapell
16:09:11 <jeff> Mike: We could use the privacy policy, but we have the field for the reason for disregard
16:09:22 <jeff> ... we wanted something in TCS to identify reason
16:09:36 <jeff> ... unstructured text doc can't be decoded by UA
16:09:48 <jeff> ... site might have 80 policies for all 3rd parties
16:09:54 <Zakim> +SusanIsrael
16:09:56 <susanisrael> susanisrael has joined #dnt
16:09:57 <jeff> ... would a user need to plow through all of them?
16:10:05 <jeff> Justin: I hear the reqt
16:10:13 <jeff> ... but it is not in what you proposed
16:10:21 <jeff> Mike: First we said there should be some mechanism
16:10:36 <jeff> ... now it is qualified
16:10:37 <npdoty> I was trying to suggest that the config/policy properties can provide a more specific explanation to the user
16:10:46 <jeff> ... maybe we should extend the non-normative text
16:10:51 <jeff> ... technical thing in TCS
16:10:55 <npdoty> since it doesn't seem like we have a settled list that needs to be encoded in a qualifiers list
16:11:06 <jeff> Justin: You would require people to say this field means this reason, etc.
16:11:10 <justin> q?
16:11:13 <jeff> Mike: Yup.  As a possibility
16:11:26 <jeff> Justin: Do you want that in the doc now
16:11:32 <jeff> Mike: We are happy w text as is
16:11:37 <rvaneijk> I need at least in the document: "A party MUST provide information regarding the specific reason for not honoring the user's expression. The party's representation MUST be be easy discoverable, clear and unambiguous. "
16:11:45 <walter> as in, Mike's and Rob's proposal
16:11:51 <jeff> Justin: Your language and TPE language quite close
16:12:00 <adrianba> adrianba has joined #dnt
16:12:08 <jeff> ... since don't require field for qualifier
16:12:24 <jeff> Mike: Specific reason could be in privacy policy
16:12:36 <jeff> ... non normative text says that might not be good enough
16:12:52 <Ari> But isn't one of the reasons why the signal is being disregarded because the user is not setting the signal?
16:12:57 <jeff> Justin: Are you saying privacy policy needs to disclose ALL reasons for disregard?
16:12:59 <Zakim> + +1.425.614.aacc
16:13:04 <jeff> Mike: I'm trying to avoid that
16:13:07 <adrianba> zakim, aacc is me
16:13:07 <Zakim> +adrianba; got it
16:13:12 <adrianba> zakim, mute me
16:13:12 <Zakim> adrianba should now be muted
16:13:16 <dsinger> we already require that the policy outline the possible reasons (well, the word ‘all’ is not there)
16:13:18 <jeff> ... there should be a SPECIFIC reason
16:13:44 <jeff> Justin: See Ari's point above.  Would that be OK with you?
16:13:44 <dsinger> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#TSV-D
16:13:46 <jeff> Mike: Yes
16:13:52 <rvaneijk> the purpose is to pin down company representation.
16:14:09 <jeff> Justin: Do people object?
16:14:26 <jeff> ... here we say you must state specific reason
16:14:30 <rvaneijk> It is pretty mild text, that improves transparency.
16:14:32 <jeff> ... what about reason(s)?
16:14:45 <dsinger> do we merely need to insert “all” — “all” the reasons that a singal might be disregarded?
16:14:53 <jeff> Mike: With Status ID return you can point to different privacy policies
16:14:57 <dsinger> s/singal/signal/
16:14:58 <Ari> could we get some examples of the kind of specific reasons you have in mind?
16:15:25 <jeff> Justin: Are you implictly requiring that (since you use singular)
16:15:32 <dsinger> issue-207?
16:15:32 <trackbot> issue-207 -- Conditions for dis-regarding (or not) DNT signals -- raised
16:15:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/207
16:15:32 <jeff> ... If so be more explicit
16:15:34 <justin> q?
16:15:37 <jeff> Mike: Let's hear other opinions
16:15:52 <jeff> Justin: Comments?  Rob - more explicit to require qualifier from server?
16:15:53 <rvaneijk> q+
16:15:59 <jeff> ... Or reason(s)?
16:15:59 <justin> ack rv
16:16:07 <jeff> Rob: Two stage thing
16:16:13 <jeff> ... 1. User transparency
16:16:22 <jeff> ... D won't be used frequently
16:16:38 <jeff> ... But if they have lots of reasons, company should be transparent
16:16:47 <jeff> ... otherwise can send the T signal
16:16:52 <Ari> whether or not it's exceptional is yet to be seen, no?
16:16:58 <jeff> ... Mike and I met in the middle
16:16:58 <npdoty> how about non-normative text like: "Parties may use the "policy", "config" and "qualifiers" properties of the tracking status resource defined in [TRACKING-DNT] so that the reason can be clearly communicated to the user by the user agent."
16:17:09 <jeff> ... TPE building blocks can help improve transparency
16:17:15 <jeff> ... hence non-normative text
16:17:47 <jeff> Justin: Sound like  you are OK if the policy itself has specific reason.
16:17:54 <jeff> ... Fair?
16:17:56 <jeff> Rob: Yes
16:18:06 <ChrisPedigoOPA> ChrisPedigoOPA has joined #dnt
16:18:29 <dsinger> q+
16:18:35 <Ari> From the industry side, I think it depends on what we mean by specific
16:18:37 <ChrisPedigoOPA> q
16:18:38 <ChrisPedigoOPA> =
16:18:43 <ChrisPedigoOPA> q+
16:18:47 <jeff> Justin: Hence less prescriptive.  Little more expansive than TPE.  David?
16:18:48 <npdoty> ack dsinger
16:19:02 <jeff> David: Maybe TPE should just say ALL the reasons.
16:19:21 <Chapell> q+
16:19:27 <jeff> ... under which a tracking request would be disregarded
16:19:33 <Zakim> +vincent
16:19:38 <jeff> Justin: I read TPE to already say ALL
16:19:41 <justin> ack chris
16:19:56 <jeff> Chris: I'm OK with general reqt for transparency
16:20:12 <jeff> ... But concerned about responding with a D in real-time
16:20:29 <moneill2> +q
16:20:30 <npdoty> q+ to discuss potential consent
16:20:34 <dsinger> yoyu use a different status — potential consent
16:20:34 <jeff> ... You might be OK with the protocol, but then learn user is subscriber
16:20:41 <rvaneijk> you should not use the D signal for OOBC
16:20:50 <jeff> ... then you might have permission to disregard, but didn't know that in real-time.
16:21:04 <jeff> Justin: We have a signal for potential consent.
16:21:13 <justin> ack mo
16:21:17 <npdoty> q-
16:21:21 <jeff> Mike: P signal is there for that purpose
16:21:26 <rvaneijk> we want to avoid abuse of D signal !
16:21:33 <npdoty> q+
16:21:42 <jeff> Chris: Maybe I don't know yet
16:21:53 <jeff> Justin: I'm trying to understand the scenario
16:22:00 <jeff> ... service like Facebook?
16:22:07 <jeff> Chris: Take a newspaper
16:22:14 <jeff> ... user comes without login
16:22:18 <jeff> ... read some article
16:22:23 <jeff> ... hit the paywall
16:22:32 <Ari> Rob, we also want to avoid abuse of DNT signals that are not set knowingly by humans
16:22:34 <jeff> ... newspaper got some info about user
16:22:46 <jeff> ... at paywall they link it all together
16:22:47 <rvaneijk> You can not track before logging in ! You can not link together without being logged in.
16:22:54 <jeff> ... but would not have responded with D or P
16:23:05 <wseltzer> +1 to rvaneijk
16:23:07 <jeff> Justin: The way we defined tracking it should be OK
16:23:23 <jeff> ... Newspaper is not tracking in its own context
16:23:37 <jeff> Chris: They might want to follow you at other sites, introducing a third party
16:23:40 <rvaneijk> And then you want to send D to justify this tracking behaviour?
16:23:51 <jeff> Justin: Interesting
16:23:56 <justin> ack cha
16:23:58 <justin> q?
16:24:14 <jeff> Alan: Don't understand why we are expanding beyond TPE
16:24:27 <jeff> ... Chris gave one example
16:24:38 <jeff> ... we'll become overly perspective
16:24:46 <jeff> Justin: Good point.  Maybe just a TPE question.
16:25:01 <jeff> ... should there be extra rules in compliance?
16:25:13 <jeff> ... two proposals are not much different
16:25:21 <jeff> ... two places to address same issue is confusing
16:25:51 <jeff> Alan: ePrivacy directive.  1 or 2 word choices made a big difference
16:25:54 <justin> q?
16:26:11 <jeff> Nick: f/u on Chris
16:26:21 <jeff> ... discussed this with P
16:26:55 <Chapell> RVE  (:
16:27:01 <jeff> s.f/u on Chris.I would like to follow up on Chris' comment.
16:27:59 <jeff> Chris: If I am a publisher, I'll respond with P to everybody
16:28:07 <jeff> ... I don't know if I have consent
16:28:18 <jeff> ... I have a problem with requiring any of these responses
16:28:26 <dsinger> Hang on, ‘P’ is for a third party, the first party can already broadly track
16:28:27 <jeff> ... should list in privacy policy
16:28:45 <jeff> Justin: Agree w Nick.
16:28:56 <jeff> ... to David's point - the case is a publisher wants to go offsite
16:29:01 <jeff> ... for retargetting
16:29:08 <jeff> ... good question for TPE implementation
16:29:08 <dsinger> D is for the case where you (and your third parties) simply ‘ignore’ the signal for some reason, without further consideration of permitted use, consent, etc.
16:29:10 <vincent> agree with dsinger, I though justin already expalined that?
16:29:16 <hefferjr> hefferjr has joined #dnt
16:29:19 <jeff> ... orthogonal
16:29:23 <hefferjr> +q
16:29:23 <justin> q?
16:29:25 <jeff> ... we should check on that issue in implementation
16:29:29 <npdoty> q-
16:29:36 <justin> ack heff
16:29:49 <jeff> hefferjr: P consent for out-of-band consent.  Not verified in real-time
16:29:57 <jeff> ... we have bounds
16:30:02 <npdoty> the other point I was going to bring up, for Chapell, was that the difference was just that Compliance would require sending a D signal when disregarding the user's request, while the TPE just makes it possible to do so
16:30:07 <jeff> ... not to be used every time someone logs on
16:30:24 <jeff> Justin: TPE has bounds.  Might not cover Chris' scenario.  He might have issues.
16:30:32 <jeff> ... not Disregarding
16:30:35 <justin> q?
16:30:38 <jeff> ... let's look at implementation testing
16:30:48 <jeff> Justin: Anything else on disregard signal?
16:31:00 <jeff> ... Rob and Mike don't want to back down
16:31:09 <jeff> ... maybe consider non-normative language to signal to user
16:31:18 <moneill2> ok
16:31:21 <rvaneijk> ok
16:31:30 <jeff> ... Mike should consider the input and decide what to propose
16:31:41 <jeff> ... Alan has pointed out covered in TPE, may need CfO
16:31:50 <npdoty> Topic: Unknowing / Short-term
16:31:59 <jeff> Justin: unknowing data collection (208) and short term data collection
16:32:01 <npdoty> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:32:12 <Zakim> npdoty, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Chapell (13%)
16:32:25 <jeff> ... noone has spoken up in favor of proposal, so we will drop and close the issue if we don't hear in a week
16:32:30 <justin> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Short_Term
16:32:46 <jeff> s/short term data collection/short term data retention/
16:33:18 <jeff> ... David, why do we need a permitted use for short term data retention
16:33:25 <jeff> David: Clarifies short term retention
16:33:33 <jeff> ... can keep data in a closed pipe
16:33:43 <jeff> ... can keep aggregate data or have consent
16:33:57 <johnsimpson> johnsimpson has joined #dnt
16:33:58 <jeff> ... or data under another permitted use
16:34:06 <jeff> ... you tell us length of retention
16:34:24 <jeff> ... non-normative: if you process in 2 hours than you exposure is less than 2 months
16:34:39 <Zakim> +johnsimpson
16:34:42 <jeff> ... delay is OK - but be careful in treatment of retained data before processing
16:34:43 <rvaneijk> I concur with Walter's response on the mailinglist:  in favour of Jonathan's proposal or nothing at all.
16:34:53 <jeff> Justin: What about the broad research case?
16:35:06 <jeff> David: Extracted data must be one of three cases
16:35:17 <jeff> ... where is the leak?
16:35:25 <johnsimpson> apologies for joining late… stuck in traffic
16:35:28 <jeff> Justin: You can say end result is aggregate data
16:35:41 <jeff> David: Then that is in your privacy policy
16:35:47 <jeff> ... "I keep data forever"
16:35:56 <jeff> ... people may or may not be comfortable with it
16:36:02 <jeff> Justin: Broader than I read it
16:36:12 <jeff> ... some advocates may have an issue
16:36:23 <justin> q?
16:36:35 <jeff> David: We couldn't figure out a fixed retention period
16:36:42 <jeff> ... would be happy if we could find one
16:36:47 <jeff> Justin: Agreed
16:37:13 <jeff> ... should say,"as long as end result is aggregate"
16:37:14 <justin> q?
16:37:18 <npdoty> rvaneijk, I think you're referring to jonathan's proposal on unknowing; where dsinger is proposing an approach for short-term raw/collection
16:37:29 <jeff> David: That relies on "tracking data" being the thing in our scope
16:37:38 <jeff> ... meaning stuff that can be tied to a user
16:37:52 <justin> q?
16:38:07 <jeff> Justin: I have more questions which I'll put into email
16:38:19 <jeff> ... Last agenda item... broad issue
16:38:24 <jeff> ... User agent compliance
16:38:26 <npdoty> Topic: UA Compliance
16:38:38 <dsinger> so, next steps on raw are for email discussion and possible amicable consensus?
16:38:46 <jeff> ... [bunch of issue numbers said too quickly]
16:38:53 <jeff> ... how to ensure signal is valid
16:39:09 <jeff> ... do we need to be more prescriptive?   consequences?
16:39:11 <justin> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_User_Agent_Compliance
16:39:15 <Zakim> -robsherman
16:39:22 <rvaneijk> nick, correct.
16:39:28 <jeff> [issues collected together above]
16:39:41 <jeff> Justin: Before becoming chair I said this is dealt with in TPE
16:39:58 <jeff> ... lots of rules... need to make sure it reflects user choice
16:40:00 <npdoty> issue-205?
16:40:00 <trackbot> issue-205 -- user agent compliance requirements; connections to TPE -- raised
16:40:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/205
16:40:11 <jeff> ... I propose to mirror in compliance, or leave it in TPE
16:40:20 <jeff> ... flip side of what Alan said
16:40:25 <jeff> ... other proposals in wiki
16:40:50 <jeff> ... Alan said UA itself should not track for advertising (e.g. Amazon silk browser)
16:41:02 <justin> q?
16:41:54 <jeff> ... Jack had language to take sentence from scope section (applies to UA that can access web...) and move it to section 5 on UA compliance
16:42:19 <jeff> ... I won't read current TCS language (from Swire and W3C staff)
16:42:22 <jeff> ... mooted
16:42:41 <jeff> ... old proposals: Jonathan Mayer (preselected is compliant)
16:42:58 <jeff> ... those are proposals
16:43:02 <jeff> ... any others?
16:43:16 <justin> q?
16:43:40 <jeff> ... Follow-UP on mailing list
16:43:59 <jeff> ... AOB?
16:44:03 <dsinger> q+
16:44:10 <justin> ack ds
16:44:17 <npdoty> q+ on WD publications
16:44:19 <jeff> David: 3 comments from AvK on TPE
16:44:24 <jeff> ... FOLLOWED-UP off line
16:44:28 <jeff> ... will bring to list soon
16:44:51 <jeff> Justin: Systemically the group will not look until we have critical mass of issues
16:44:58 <jeff> ... but individual follow-up is good
16:45:07 <sidstamm> thanks, dsinger
16:45:24 <justin> ack npd
16:45:24 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to comment on WD publications
16:45:32 <jeff> Nick: We are required to publish drafts every 3 months.
16:45:35 <jeff> ... We did TPE
16:45:47 <jeff> ... We should publish compliance
16:45:54 <jeff> ... we had some editorial changes
16:46:09 <jeff> ... harmonize w TPE
16:46:25 <jeff> Justin: Last heartbeat was January
16:46:33 <npdoty> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tracking-compliance-20140128/
16:46:33 <jeff> Nick: Yes, every three months
16:46:56 <jeff> ... just a snapshot
16:47:08 <jeff> ... does not represent consensus
16:47:21 <rvaneijk> q+
16:47:26 <justin> ack rv
16:47:38 <jeff> Rob: I have concerns wrt audience measurement
16:47:44 <jeff> ... looks like it is a done deal
16:47:56 <jeff> ... but I'm not sure it will make it in the end
16:48:07 <npdoty> q+
16:48:18 <jeff> ... If you publish, make it more explicit that it is not sure that audience measurement is in spec
16:48:21 <jeff> ... now implied that it is
16:48:33 <jeff> Justin: Agree.
16:48:40 <justin> ack npd
16:48:40 <jeff> ... make it clear there is an open debate.
16:48:54 <jeff> Nick: We have both a note and an issue marker
16:49:02 <jeff> ... what if we drop not and leave issue
16:49:07 <jeff> Rob: Not explicit enough.
16:49:38 <jeff> Justin: We can say in note that there is a debate about this permitted use
16:49:39 <justin> q?
16:49:45 <Zakim> -vincent
16:49:49 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
16:49:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/30-dnt-minutes.html jeff
16:49:57 <npdoty> Note: An open question for the group is whether or how audience measurement would be addressed. See issue 25.
16:50:00 <susanisrael> aren't there a lot of open questions?  I  am not sure why any one particular one should be singled out if we have noted the issues.
16:50:09 <Zakim> +LeeTien
16:50:26 <jeff> Justin: Susan raises a fair point
16:50:33 <jeff> ... editorial decision
16:50:43 <jeff> ... Rob has asked for more explicit
16:50:47 <npdoty> in all cases, we have change proposals to existing text
16:50:48 <jeff> ... don't want to say no
16:50:58 <jeff> ... tell us if there are other cases
16:50:58 <npdoty> ... here we had a note because there wasn't existing text, and it might be confusing otherwise
16:51:01 <susanisrael> agree, I don't know how the issues are called out any more either.  It just does seem to raise one concern above all others.
16:51:32 <jeff> ... sympathetic, an extra sentence to a note is not a big deal
16:52:05 <johnsimpson> thanks
16:52:05 <Zakim> -[Apple]
16:52:06 <Zakim> -rvaneijk
16:52:06 <Zakim> -Chapell
16:52:07 <jeff> Justin: Thanks for joining the call
16:52:08 <Zakim> -hefferjr
16:52:08 <Zakim> -kulick
16:52:08 <Zakim> -justin
16:52:09 <Zakim> -moneill2
16:52:09 <Zakim> -SusanIsrael
16:52:09 <Zakim> -Chris_Pedigo
16:52:10 <Zakim> -Ari
16:52:10 <Zakim> -Carl_Cargill
16:52:10 <Zakim> -LeeTien
16:52:11 <jeff> [adjourned]
16:52:11 <Zakim> -Brooks
16:52:11 <Zakim> -johnsimpson
16:52:11 <Zakim> -Jack_Hobaugh
16:52:12 <Zakim> -npdoty
16:52:13 <Zakim> -WSeltzer
16:52:15 <Zakim> -Mozilla
16:52:17 <Zakim> -eberkower
16:52:18 <jeff> rrsagent, make minutes
16:52:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/04/30-dnt-minutes.html jeff
16:52:18 <justin> Thanks jeff for scribing.
16:52:23 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:52:36 <Zakim> -adrianba
16:52:55 <Zakim> -walter
16:52:56 <Zakim> T&S_Track(dnt)12:00PM has ended
16:52:56 <Zakim> Attendees were Jeff, npdoty, dsinger, hefferjr, walter, Jack_Hobaugh, +1.650.480.aaaa, Ari, eberkower, Carl_Cargill, WSeltzer, +aabb, sidstamm, justin, Chris_Pedigo, moneill2,
16:52:56 <Zakim> ... robsherman, Brooks, rvaneijk, kulick, Chapell, SusanIsrael, +1.425.614.aacc, adrianba, vincent, johnsimpson, LeeTien
16:58:12 <kj> kj has joined #dnt