Tracking Protection Working Group Teleconference

09 Apr 2014

See also: IRC log


npdoty, Carl_Cargill, Ninja, Wendy, Fielding, dsinger, +1.312.340.aaaa, Jack_Hobaugh, Ari, Mike_Zaneis, eberkower, dwainberg, WileyS, Chris_Pedigo, kulick, moneill2, SusanIsrael, Jeff, MattHayes, schunter, Peder_Magee, vinay, hefferjr, robsherman, Brooks, Chris_IAB, Chapell, [FTC], rvaneijk, vincent, [Microsoft]
Carl Cargill
WileyS, npdoty


<trackbot> Date: 09 April 2014

<sidstamm> hi all, I can't dial in today but will be watching irc

<ninja> thanks, sidstamm!

<Ari> 312.340 is Ari from Rocket Fuel

<ninja> volunteers to scribe today?

<dsinger> \

<WileyS> I'll scribe - I'll take bullet for the team

<npdoty> scribenick: WileyS

<npdoty> chair: Carl

<ninja> fzakim, who is here?

Ninja: calls are now shorter - only 1 hour

<kulick> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html

Carl: Are we ready to start. Simple agenda today. Assuming everyone has the agenda

Suggested editorial changes to the TPE Editor's draft

Carl: suggest editorial changes to the draft, announcement of 2 weeks to Last Call

<JackHobaugh> Could Roy step through the three changes he made this morning to the TPE?

Carl: quite a bit of discussion on the list on the Plug-In API issue
... any editorial changes that people feel are vitally necessary to make this a viable document.

Ninja: still an unidentified IP caller - please identify or we'll drop you. Nick, please...

<Chris_IAB> I joined from a private #, but not an IP #

Nick: Double checking - not referring to mine

Roy: MIME types is the antiquated term - have been called Media types for 15 years now

<ninja> Chris_IAB, that's probably you

<npdoty> great, thanks.

Carl, that takes care of that.

<npdoty> "application/tracking-status+json" sounds good to me.

<dsinger> Just to confirm the edit we discussed in email (Nick's issue)

Chris M: Editorial speaking to have a working technical document - I don't believe we should have the definitions of Tracking and Context in the document.

<Chris_IAB> Editorially speaking, I do not think we need the definitions of tracking or context in the TPE

Roy: Generally speaking, editorial changes dont alter decisions made by the working group. Issue-5 to be specific here

<Chris_IAB> …in order to have a working TECHNICAL specification

<npdoty> issue-5 and issue-240, I believe we're referring to

Carl: So you are saying this is substantive change?

Roy: Yes

<dsinger> it would also take a very careful read to determine whether every instance of 'tracking' in the document was only using it in its normal english meaning

Roy: Unless there is new information offered we're not going to discuss it

<Chris_IAB> that's right, they are COMPLIANCE related, not technical\

<Marc_> I would guess that half of the people on this IRC agree with Chris, if not more.

<dsinger> ...it would be editorial only if the term were unused, alas

<Chris_IAB> it would be an editorial change for a TECHNICAL document

<fielding> and it is a closed issue, so this is not the time to discuss it. If it is still considered an objection, then a formal objection is called for at LC.

Ninja: I know you're not happy with these compliance terms in the TPE

<Marc_> By Committee, do you mean working group?

Carl: So these won't be changed

<Chris_IAB> how is it a substantive change?

Ninja: I wanted to bring up the UA Extensions discussion on the Mail List. I wanted to ask Roy for the outcome of these discussions. What text did he include.

<npdoty> Marc_, Carl sometimes using "committee" as a generic term for working groups, I think

<npdoty> User agents often include user-installable extensions, also known as add-ons or plug-ins, that are capable of modifying configurations and making network requests. From the user's perspective, these extensions are considered part of the user agent and ought to respect the user's configuration of a tracking preference. However, there is no single standard for extension interfaces. A user agent that supports extensions SHOULD also provide an appropriate mechanism for

<npdoty> such extensions to determine the user's tracking preference.

<npdoty> (the last sentence, in particular)

I keep getting disconnected - someone else will need to take over as Scribe. Not sure what the issue is.

<dsinger> (there are 283 occurrences of 'tracking' in the TPE!)

<fielding> New text: A user agent that supports extensions SHOULD also provide an appropriate mechanism for such extensions to determine the user's tracking preference.


<npdoty> scribenick: npdoty

fielding: new text; MUST to SHOULD, makes sense, a social requirement rather than a protocol requirement

<WileyS> Thank you Nick!!! So sorry - I was fully committed by my IRC client doesn't want to cooperate

fielding: instead of providing an API, "appropriate mechanism", variety of potential implementations
... capacity for plugins to understand the UA-set preference for tracking, if they're not using the browser stack for making that request
... seemed like that satisfied those who had previously commented

npd_not_scribe: +1 on fielding's revised text

<dsinger> I think we should open an issue on this question, so we don't lose track of it and think some more

<susanisrael> * i think everyone owes npdoty a beer

JackHobaugh: a lot of emails back and forth on this topic yesterday, obvious that there's not a consensus on the issue in the WG

<moneill2> everybody was fine with SHOULD

JackHobaugh: needs more discussion in the group before we make these types of changes

<ninja> JackHobaugh, I am sorry, but most of the discussion was not ON topic

JackHobaugh: need to open this up for discussion within the group

<Marc_> This issue requires further discussion within the working group.

<dsinger> Let's record it as a non-last-call Issue?

fielding: lots of the conversation wasn't on topic; don't want to postpone because of irrelevant discussion
... depends on the definition of user agent; I thought I was just rephrasing an existing requirement
... david thought of UA as different, and so we found a better phrasing

<Marc_> It seems that implementation for User Agents is critical, no?

fielding: only affects UA implementations

JackHobaugh: can you explain the motivation?

<WileyS> Roy, Know vs. Set - I think that's the confusion.

fielding: we had a loosely phrased section before about plugins
... had had several conversations before, we wanted some way to communicate to plugins, but plugin interfaces aren't standard

<dsinger> I think it used to say "User agents often include user-installable component parts, commonly known as plug-ins or browser extensions, that are capable of making their own network requests. From the user's perspective, these components are considered part of the user agent and thus ought to respect the user's configuration of a tracking preference. However, plug-ins do not normally have read access to the browser configuration."

fielding: so when I merged in that section, I added a simple requirement to add an API for that purpose, without specifying the API itself

<dsinger> so, "ought to" became "should" and "respect the user" became "some mechanism"...

fielding: restatement of what we already say, that you must set the DNT header field when the user enables it for the user agent, but can only send it when you know
... any browser that has extensions wouldn't be able to comply with the protocol, which is an outcome we wouldn't want
... alternative would be separately setting the DNT header for every plugin installed (perhaps even by default) in their browser, or losing the universal choice

<WileyS> -q

fielding: need a way to spread that throughout the user agent; adding this to the section is a note to developers that they should think about that and an implementation should consider that if they want plugins to use it

JackHobaugh: believe we need further discussion of the issue, not just the mailing list discussion, and go through the Call for Objections process

fielding: if people disagree, should raise an objection; if people agree, don't need to
... don't think an extra week will help us

JackHobaugh: object to the must being changed to a should as an editorial change

fielding: as editor, I'm not necessarily making purely editorial changes

<ninja> yes

dwainberg: I thought we'd agreed as a group not to make any substantive changes, but have comments on other issue

dsinger: should open an ISSUE, but don't need to block Last Call on it; could discuss it during Last Call

<Brooks> Isn't the point not to discuss it in last call?

dsinger: implementation experience from browsers/operating systems would be useful

<dsinger> issue in our issue database

<WileyS> Disagree - that's the same as punting to v2

<Marc_> Do we do call for objections first and then proceed to last call?

Carl: as dsinger proposed, create an issue to address later. does anyone object to that?

<dsinger> to WileyS, no, we can make changes as a result of feedback in last call, for example

<kulick> Somewhat related to the discussion at hand, does anyone see the outcome from ISSUE-153 (option B from https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-addons-153/) in the TPE (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html) ?

<fielding> like I said, the MUST already existed (and still exists) since the user agent was already required to send DNT on all HTTP requests when DNT:1 or DNT:0 is enabled

WileyS: dsinger, your suggestion would automatically punts this to version 2. won't work on any open issues for this during Last Call

dsinger: we can choose to work on issues that we choose to

<Marc_> No, Shane is correct. That is what was stated before. Let's be clear.

WileyS: if we're not working on any open issues during Last Call, then I'd object to pushing it to v2

<rvaneijk> I think going to last call with this open issue is a bad idea.

<WileyS> I don't believe we can move to Last Call with this significant of an Open Issue

<Marc_> I agree that going to last call with this open issue is a bad idea

ninja: had said before that we wouldn't have open issues into Last Call; editors' draft we can work on, but Last Call Working Draft is stable for the two months of the public review period for Last Call

wseltzer: goal is substantial agreement upon in order to release for public comment; no up front that it's not perfect
... one word change doesn't seem blocking

<JackHobaugh> Wendy, it was a “MUST” to a “SHOULD”

<dsinger> we are clearly going to continue to realize things we ought to discuss 'at some point of our choosing'. We'll never bail the boat completely dry

wseltzer: an "ought to" to a "MUST" was noticed; then to a "SHOULD" scaling back a normative requirement; clarification of language that already existed

fielding: basically, yes

<JackHobaugh> Understood Wendy, but the “MUST” is what we reviewed last week as the document going to Last Call, correct?

<WileyS> David, loved how you used "ought" in that statement :-)

carl: achieved an understanding if not an agreement; change was a clarification

<Marc_> so rephrasing a must to a should is not substantive, it's just a clarification? That makes no sense at all in the context of this document.

<WileyS> Carl - a formal objection has been raiseed. Are you able to close that defacto?

carl: want to declare this closed for the moment, can continue with dsinger's proposal regarding issue

<WileyS> Carl - Does this mean we're going to return to the "MUST" for now?

carl: if further discussion is merited, we can have that. would like to move to other comments on the q

<ninja> jeff, the LC document says SHIULD currently

<fielding> WileyS, A formal objection can only be raised after we decide to go to LC without changing the text, and that FO would go to the Director for resolution.

dwainberg: follow-up to Chris_IAB; shouldn't call this a "technical specification" because it's not a purely technical specification

<ninja> dwainberg, we created the need to incorporate definitions, when the group decided to separate the two documents

dwainberg: charter describes a technical document and a compliance document that are separate; while I disagree with that, I think we should be careful when we discuss this in public to call it a "technical plus compliance document"

<Marc_> At least 8 people on this IRC agree with David Wainberg's point.

<Ari> +9

<matt> +10

<WileyS> Roy, thank you for the clarification.

<Chapell> +11

carl: would take that under advisement; w3c works on technical specifications

dwainberg: agree, but this isn't a technical specification

fielding: documents (like HTTP) describe semantics, require definitions

<dsinger> paras 3 and 4 of which section?

dwainberg: my second point, as an editorial change suggest that we pare down the Introduction, specifically paragraphs 3 and 4

<fielding> section 1, para 3 and 4, to be replaced by what?

<kulick> David, are you refering to these two paragraphs?

carl: we will consider that proposal

<kulick> It has become common for Web site owners to collect data regarding the usage of their sites for a variety of purposes, including what led the user to visit their site (referrals), how effective the user experience is within the site (web analytics), and the nature of who is using their site (audience segmentation). In some cases, the data collected is used to dynamically adapt the content...

<kulick> ...(personalization) or the advertising presented to the user (targeted advertising). Data collection often occurs through the insertion of tracking elements on each page. A survey of these techniques and their privacy implications can be found in [KnowPrivacy].

<kulick> People have the right to know how data about them will be collected and how it will be used. Empowered with that knowledge, individuals can decide whether to allow their online activities to be tracked and data about them to be collected. Many Internet companies use data gathered about people's online activities to personalize content and target advertising based on their perceived interests. Whil

<kulick> e some people appreciate this personalization of content and ads, others are troubled by what they perceive as an invasion of their privacy. For them, the benefit of personalization is not worth their concerns about allowing entities with whom they have no direct relationship to amass profiles about their activities.

<some cross talk>

<dsinger> can we be clear about what edit is being proposed, please?

carl: would look for some documentation

<Marc_> what does that mean Wendy?

wseltzer: as a process, continuing to ask for technical objections, but seem to hear challenges that aren't technical objections but don't like the content of the document

<WileyS> Wendy - this is a technical specification - any objection to the text within the document is at its nature technical.

<Brooks> technical only objects are fine in a techical only spec

<Brooks> objections

Chris_IAB: how is that determined?

wseltzer: that is the open question, to be put before the group

<Marc_> What is being put before the group? Please clarify that Wendy.

<WileyS> +q

<JackHobaugh> Wendy, how will a call for consensus to go to last call be put before the group?

WileyS: to wseltzer, we are talking about a technical specification and requirements in the technical specification
... talking about plugin support; what should or shouldn't be in place
... wseltzer, you and others interpret fixing things as delays; would rather have a good standard

<dsinger> I think we have tried to make the TPE spec about the protocol and punt compliance to the compliance document. If we missed somewhere, let's get it pointed out.

WileyS: especially for server-side implementers; it's not helpful if browsers do something and servers don't do anything in response

carl: well put. all arguments have to be considered. i agree on being careful

<Ari> thank you marissa

<dsinger> issue-153?

<trackbot> issue-153 -- What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them? -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153

WileyS: to follow up, regarding issue-153 was to address this; we're not finding the text

<kulick> The outcome from ISSUE-153 (option B from https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-addons-153/) does not appear to be presented in the TPE (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html).

WileyS: if we can clear that up, would ease the discussion

<kulick> here is the text: "A user agent that permits an extension or plug-in to configure or inject a DNT header is jointly responsible, with the plug-in or extension, for ensuring compliance to the extent possible."

< checking which editor was adding what >

<kulick> this was after june

<WileyS> I don't think the edit made it into the document

<kulick> this was way more recent

dsinger: comments from June, but has been edited

<fielding> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#determining

fielding: yes, has been edited since then, incorporated into changes we discussed last week

<fielding> A user agent extension MUST NOT alter the tracking preference expression or its associated configuration unless the act of installing and enabling that extension is an explicit choice by the user for that tracking preference, or the extension itself complies with all of the requirements this protocol places on a user agent.

<JackHobaugh> ISSUE 153 results are here: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-dnt-minutes#item02

WileyS: had agreement from some browsers and us; responsibility to the extent possible ; but can't find that part of the text
... have been looking through the editors' draft on the side

fielding: 9th para of section 3

<kulick> but this was option B of 153

<kulick> "A user agent that permits an extension or plug-in to configure or inject a DNT header is jointly responsible, with the plug-in or extension, for ensuring compliance to the extent possible."

WileyS: don't think that's the agreement from issue 153

<kulick> it went to CFO and was decided

fielding: reframed language to put requirements on particular actors, the user agent, in this sense
... wasn't that part for the compliance spec?

<JackHobaugh> ISSUE-153 went through the call for objections process and there was a result found.

WileyS: it was a TPE discussion

fielding: not sure where we would put it in the TPE, if it's about user agent compliance

<ninja> JackHobaugh, this CfO addressed another subquestion

WileyS: everyone agreed in v1 about as much as possible for the browser to be the source of the signal

fielding: not sure June Draft text is relevant

WileyS: but the concept is agreed upon

<kulick> +1

<kulick> around paragraph 7 or 8

fielding: don't think it adds anything, but don't mind adding it if we know where

dsinger: in section 3, among the plugins paragraphs

<kulick> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-addons-153/

<Chris_IAB> Chairs, please consider, that with respect to Roy's rebuttal to David Wainberg's point that "we didn't do that in the HTTP spec", I would say, sure, THAT working group hadn't decided to specifically bifurcate their compliance from their tech spec, WE HAVE. Accordingly, David W. is right-- all that stuff belongs in a compliance spec, not in the TECH spec.

dsinger: should doublecheck the history, but if we have agreement, then yes, we should add it

<Chris_IAB> WileyS, isn't your point that we already decided this as a group?

fielding: confusion is that the extension is part of the user agent already; not sure what jointly responsible would mean
... I think it's covered already

<kulick> respectfully Roy, why was this not brought up in the CFO then

<kulick> this was a decided issue

WileyS: extensions can add headers of their own; align settings about conflicting or double headers, that this was supposed to address

<Chris_IAB> if this was already agreed to by the group, why are we having this debate now (on the substantive point of this issue)?

WileyS: as opposed to rogue extensions doing something completely on their own, not coordinating the settings
... not about compliance, just about turning on the signal and not sending mixed messages

<dsinger> Roy is right on terminology; the UA is the entire bundle of software. we don't have a word for the 'base' other than 'browser', but we've been criticized for being 'browser specific' before

fielding: if there's a requirement on the user agent, it's responsible to do so as a whole, however it's implemented or number of extensions

<ninja> fielding, do you object the inclusion of this sentence?

<dsinger> "If the user-agent can be assembled from parts (e.g. using a base and plug-ins or extensions), and the extensions can ...."

<wseltzer> 222

fielding: "an implementation that invokes external processes is responsible for that"

<wseltzer> s/222/

WileyS: fine with using your alternate terms
... agreement in the group, didn't even have to go to Call for Objections
... fielding, if you can just find the right words for it, that would be great

<kulick> why are we re-hashing something that was already decided

<kulick> didn't we just say that was not appropriate on the last discussion we just had

<kulick> why would that apply there, but not here?

Wileys: we have user interface requirements, sometimes the business requirements are sufficient

schunter: could we just rephrase to say "user agent and its extensions" in place of "user agent"

<Chris_IAB> good point Shane: this is a slippery slope, and some folks want to draw the lines on compliance vs. tech one way, and others differently. I've been pointing this fundamental flaw out ever since we made the decision to bifurcate the docs.

<jeff> [Sounds to me that there is a need for "non-normative text" that the user agent includes plug-ins, etc.]

dsinger: "user agent" is the entire assembly, so we can get the same concept but with technically correct text

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, was this a closed issue, by the working group?

<fielding> kulick, I don't recognize this as a decided issue -- there was merely agreement to include a non-normative statement, which was later edited by me to be something that makes sense.

dsinger: if you assemble your user agent from pieces, need to make responsibility for all the pieces

<Chris_IAB> CHAIRS: are we discussing a closed issue, or was it left open?

<fielding> … that doesn't mean I did it right

npdnotscribe: Chris_IAB, yes issue-153 is closed, but we're discussing editorial changes to make sure we're using terms correctly

<Chris_IAB> I'd like to see the text before we agree

<dsinger> ACTION: dsinger to work with Roy to find the right sentence for issue-153 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/09-dnt-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-447 - Work with roy to find the right sentence for issue-153 [on David Singer - due 2014-04-16].

<kulick> +1

<WileyS> Thank you Ninja

<dsinger> sure, Roy and I will circulate text as soon as we emerge (watch for smoke)

dsinger: make we sure add that sentence, but with the right terminology

<kulick> worksforme

Chris_IAB: want to see the text before agreeing

ninja: not asking for a Last Call decision today, about finishing the text and then ask to go to Last Call

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, why in some cases, are we told that we can't discuss closed issues, but in other cases, the Chairs and staff allow substantive debate on other closed issues?

kulick: just want to make sure we don't lose track of this

<Chris_IAB> npdoty, that was not an editorial discussion

Announcement of two week call for consensus for TPE Last Call

notscribe: Chris_IAB, kulick and WileyS raised it because they though the text didn't reflect the closed decision

<jeff> Chris, I think we both discussed closed issues that the Chairs did not want to discuss, as well as closed issues that the Chairs wanted to discuss.

<WileyS> Carl and Team - Today's call was only scheduled for 60 mins and that ended 3 minutes ago

<jeff> Chris, in the latter case, there was a difference between the decision that was made and what is in the draft - which caused the need for more discussion.

<Chris_IAB> jeff, we were shut down previously on my proposed editorial change, because it was noted that the issue was previously closed and decided on by the working group

ninja: include these remarks from today; send out updated document as soon as possible, to ask you for group consensus to go to Last Call, ask by April 23

<Chris_IAB> jeff, the process isn't being managed fairly-- that's plain to see

<jeff> Chris, which one? Was that the one that the Chairs took under advisement?

carl: objections again, are based on technical issues, make the document unimplementable, for example

<Chris_IAB> jeff, no, the one I made at the outset of the call

<fielding> I still don't understand why the two paragraphs in section 3 do not satisfy the actual issue (without using the original text), but I don't have an opinion on adding more editorial text about joint responsibility (even though responsibility is a legal issue, not a technical one).

<Chris_IAB> we were not allowed to discuss it further, per Carl

carl: issues we're discussing aren't closed ones, but questions that prevent implementation

<jeff> Chris, sorry. I forgot which one. Could you remind me - either here or in a separate channel?

carl: consensus is not unanimity or economic factors (with legal implications) but questions for implementation/adoption

fielding: previous agenda item: one editorial change, to move 2.3 into introduction, existing introduction into a subsection
... doesn't change any text, just moves things around in the document
... so that the terms are available in the introduction, rather than a later section; want the terms up front

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, sure, I asked for the editorial change to remove the definitions of tracking and context (and move them to a compliance document)-- this is not a substantive change, for a TECHNICAL document, which is supposed to be accompanied in practice, by a compliance document

carl: any comments or objections?

dsinger: seems atypical for formal terminology to be before the explanation of the document, but if the terms are used

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, there is no technical/procedural requirement in a tech spec for these definitions

<ninja> Chris_IAB, we discussed this decision extensively: It is necessary to define the scope and meaning of the signal sent by the user

fielding: section 2 is notational conventions, which usually doesn't have important terms

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, if you removed them, folks could still follow the implementation guidelines without them

<jeff> Chris, I looked back at the IRC notes. It does not seem to me that there was no discussion. It seems that there was a discussion, and it was pointed out that this input from you contradicted a previous WG decision. Am I mis-reading it?

<Chris_IAB> ninja, I completely disagree that is is technically "necessary"

< listing of numbering of the sections >

Publication of TCS Public Working Draft

carl: we are over time

ninja: can we point to agendum 5 briefly

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, that's because IRC was acting up

<WileyS> The TCS was a mess when we last left it. Are we going with the June Draft or the original Editors Draft of the TCS?

<Chris_IAB> so I made my request verbally

<Chris_IAB> it should have been scribed

<Chris_IAB> in any case, my point is certainly in the record now

carl: TPE would be Last Call WD; TCS would be a working draft to start with

<WileyS> I prefer the Editors Draft - but others may want the June Draft. How are we going to make a decision?

<WileyS> The definitions can go into either one

ninja: the document has been a mess, but chairs asked Nick to make updates based on group decisions

<WileyS> Fair - but we still need to decide which one to put forward

<WileyS> It doesn't answer my question

WileyS: agree to put new definitions, even if I don't agree with all the definitions

<wseltzer> "Latest editor's draft:

<wseltzer> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.html"

WileyS: doesn't answer the basic question of, if we push a new Working Draft, are we going to go with the June draft or the latest editors' draft?
... need to make a decision if publishing again

<ninja> Decision on what base text to use: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/2013-july-explanatory-memo/

<fielding> I believe the decision was made for us to be the one published as a WD. ;-)

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, "It seems that there was a discussion, and it was pointed out that this input from you contradicted a previous WG decision." -- yes, that's how it went down, but when the same thing happened later, but it was Roy arguing the point, the Chairs let the substantive conversation go… THAT'S what I'm pointing out. Seems biased to me.

wseltzer: think we already made that decision, editors' draft, where nick has made updates

WileyS: doesn't represent the WG's position, but w3c staff and co-chairs of the time position
... at the time, closed many of the issues we had opened, and then created new issues, did that all on their own, without the WG's participation

<jeff> Chris, the reason it went on in the later case was because the current text in the draft disagreed with the WG decision. We were not debating the WG decision. We were trying to find the language to implement that decision in the draft.

WileyS: why we had an uprising, a messy starting point

carl: with metaphors, wasn't good, and we should make it less bad

<rvaneijk> I object to the text in par 5.3.5 "Expecting further text on audience measurement. "

<Chris_IAB> Jeff, that's exactly what Roy was arguing… he said things like, "it doesn't make sense to me", etc. He was arguing against the POINT that had been closed. Same same, but different treatment my friend.

<wseltzer> Are there issues in the split can't be addressed in open issues against the current Editors' draft?

WileyS: continental divide

carl: need a lot of work to get it in shape

<Chris_IAB> Carl, wseltzer, completely agree with Swiley on his current point

<jeff> Chris, I agree - but the difference is that the editor controls the pen, so we needed to help him find words he could pen. That's what took longer.

WileyS: they sort of developed this consensus on their own

<fielding> Chris_IAB, the intent of the current draft is to encompass whatver decision was made, but that doesn't mean I understood that decision and the text that was proposed to close it. As editorial NON-NORMATIVE text, it is subject to my redrafting as editor based on my knowledge of the rest of the document. Again, that doesn't mean I redrafted it correctly.

<Chris_IAB> jeff, I respectfully disagree with your assessment

carl: start with draft wendy linked to, need to talk with co-chairs

<jeff> Chris, I respectfully accept your disagreement and likewise :)

carl: discuss with the chairs if there is a mitigation

< more metaphors >

<Chris_IAB> fielding, my point is that we didn't get to discuss other proposed changes in the same way you discussed this one. It's about fair play in consensus building.

<eberkower> Well done, Shane

<WileyS> June Draft + Changes

<fielding> Chris_IAB, you know full well that the definition of tracking is not editiorial and that the decision on ISSUE-5 specifically directs me to include it in TPE, so your suggestions otherwise are false,.

<Chris_IAB> Official editorial request before moving to last call: please remove the definitions of "tracking" and "context" from the TPE.

<rvaneijk> Nick, the discussion on audience measurements is too far from consensus to assume that "Expecting further text on audience measurement.

<Chris_IAB> fielding, I know of no such thing, other than we disagree on it.

<WileyS> +1 to Rob

npdoty: < tried to explain current status, previous working draft publications, editorial changes; group consensus comes from working through issues and change proposals >

<dsinger> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior_(Longfellow)

<Chris_IAB> fielding, I also point out that the subsequent decision to include these definitions was in direct conflict with the earlier group decision to bifurcate the documents.

<WileyS> Have a great weekend everyone...

carl: close the call for today. fielding and dsinger to finish edits. ask for consensus on TPE Last Call.

<vincent> thanks npdoty


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: dsinger to work with Roy to find the right sentence for issue-153 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/04/09-dnt-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-04-09 17:22:19 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

FAILED: s/222//
Succeeded: s/draft/draft?/
Succeeded: s/no of no/know of no/
Found ScribeNick: WileyS
Found ScribeNick: npdoty
Inferring Scribes: WileyS, npdoty
Scribes: WileyS, npdoty
ScribeNicks: WileyS, npdoty
Default Present: npdoty, Carl_Cargill, Ninja, Wendy, Fielding, dsinger, +1.312.340.aaaa, Jack_Hobaugh, Ari, Mike_Zaneis, eberkower, dwainberg, WileyS, Chris_Pedigo, kulick, moneill2, SusanIsrael, Jeff, MattHayes, schunter, Peder_Magee, vinay, hefferjr, robsherman, Brooks, Chris_IAB, Chapell, [FTC], rvaneijk, vincent, [Microsoft]
Present: npdoty Carl_Cargill Ninja Wendy Fielding dsinger +1.312.340.aaaa Jack_Hobaugh Ari Mike_Zaneis eberkower dwainberg WileyS Chris_Pedigo kulick moneill2 SusanIsrael Jeff MattHayes schunter Peder_Magee vinay hefferjr robsherman Brooks Chris_IAB Chapell [FTC] rvaneijk vincent [Microsoft]
Regrets: sidstamm
Found Date: 09 Apr 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/04/09-dnt-minutes.html
People with action items: dsinger

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]