W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Agenda for January 15

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:55:53 -0800
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <299ABF4F-315A-4D09-850D-C88E6D3A05BB@apple.com>
To: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>
My apologies; I may be able to make some of the call, but I am at an MPEG meeting this week.

On Jan 14, 2014, at 11:11 , Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org> wrote:

> ----------------------------------
> 
> 1. Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome!
> 
> 2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions)
> 
> ----------------------------------
> --- Issues for this Call ---
> 
> Note: See more info at the end for details.
> 
> ISSUE-153 What are the implications on software that changes requests but does not necessarily initiate them?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/153
> 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_limitations_for_add-ons
> January 15: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine consensus
> January 29: M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for objections (2 weeks after M3); Analysis starts

I have not heard from Brad yet, but I think we should have an option that reads:

"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 that the rules are followed.

Indeed, I think that this might reach amicable consensus. (We would leave the existing ban on network intermediaries, and manage plug-ons or add-ins this way.)


> 
> ISSUE-197 How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is received?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/197
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_Disregard_signal
> Note: We would like to close this ISSUE by consensus, so the CfO procedure is only back-up.
> January 15: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine consensus
> January 29: M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for objections (2 weeks after M3); Analysis starts
> 
> ISSUE-240 Definition of context
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context
> January 15: M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of change proposals
> January 22: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
> 
> ISSUE-239 Should tracking status representation include an array of links for claiming compliance by reference?
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/239
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_status_URL_array_for_compliance_regimes 
> January 15: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
> January 22: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine consensus
> 
> ISSUE-241
> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241
> January 15: M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of change proposals
> 
> AoB
> 
> Reminder for open Call for Objections
> 
> ISSUE-151 User Agent Requirement: Be able to handle an exception request
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-exception-151/
> Deadline - January 22
> 
> 
> ================ Summary Documentation on Resolving ISSUES =================
> 
> PHASES to resolve issues:
> M0 (announcement): Initial call for change proposals; All change proposals should be drafted
> M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of change proposals
> M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
> M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine consensus
> M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for objections (2 weeks after M3); Analysis starts
> M7 (announcement): Results are announced
> 
> STATUS of the ISSUES:
> - OPEN During phases M0, M1, M2
> - PENDING REVIEW: During phases M3, M5
> - CLOSED after M7
> All other issues are RAISED.
> -----
> ================ Infrastructure =================
> 
> Zakim teleconference bridge:
> VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
> Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
> IRC Chat: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org/>, port 6665, #dnt
> 
> OFFLINE caller identification:
> If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your
> phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call
> (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in my
> case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of time. If you are not
> comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone number,
> please email your name and phone number to
> npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>. We want to reduce (in fact,
> eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note
> that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to
> off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 19:56:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:42 UTC