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

Re: Agenda for January 29, 2014

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:41:55 +0100
To: Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org>
Cc: Ninja Marnau <ninja@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
Message-ID: <d1365ce8d14eb7c176294ec1825780e8@xs4all.nl>

In my view, we shouldn't define any qualifiers that have not reached 
consensus yet. As you rightfully indicate, the TPE leaves room for 
future enhancements.

Rob

Kathy Joe schreef op 2014-01-29 16:37:
> Removing m for audience measurement will remove the possibility of
> audience measurement being catered for as a permitted use in the TPE
> before concluding the discussion about permitted uses.
> 
> The proposed text does not port TCS decisions about permitted uses
> into the TPE, as these may be defined by the compliance regime, but
> simply provides a technical solution for this to be possible:
> 
> _“While different compliance regimes can define requirements and
> uses of certain qualifiers, and a particular compliance regime may not
> require the use of qualifiers for particular activities to be
> permitted, the following qualifiers have the defined, descriptive
> meanings.”_
> 
> Regards
> 
> Kathy Joe
> 
>> -------------------------
>> FROM: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>> TO: Ninja Marnau [mailto:ninja@w3.org]
>> CC: public-tracking@w3.org
>> SENT: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:05:19 +0100
>> SUBJECT: Re: Agenda for January 29, 2014
>> 
>> We should discuss whether or not to solve audience measurement
>> before
>> the TPE goes to last call.
>> 
>> I argue against solving the outstanding issue(s), and as a
>> consequence
>> delete the "m" response from the TPE and relax the burden for the
>> TPE to
>> go to Last Call.
>> 
>> I respectfully ask to open an issue for this matter.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> Ninja Marnau schreef op 2014-01-28 20:33:
>>> This week, the co-chairs will talk about the advancement of the
>> TPE
>>> spec to Last Call and the steps the group needs to take.
>>> We have narrowed down the remaining ISSUES and will probably
>> proceed
>>> to Call for Objections within the next two weeks. Therefore, the
>>> co-chairs will start to take up ISSUES from the Compliance spec
>> in
>>> February.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Ninja
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 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-217 and ISSUE-228: Definition of network interaction
>>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-interact-217/results
>> [1]
>>> January 29: M7 (announcement): Results are announced
>>> 
>>> Announcement: Getting closer to Last Call
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call [2]
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-240: Do we need to define context?
>>> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240 [3]
>>> 
>> 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context
>> [4]
>>> January 29: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen;
>>> Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change
>> proposal
>>> February 5: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate /
>>> determine consensus
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-241: Distinguish elements for site-internal use and
>> elements
>>> that can be re-used by others (1/3)
>>> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241 [5]
>>> 
>> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_elements_for_1and3_party_use
>> [6]
>>> 
>>> January 29: M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been
>>> submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of
>>> change proposals
>>> February 5: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen;
>>> Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change
>> proposal
>>> 
>>> AoB
>>> 
>>> Reminder for open Call for Objection:
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-153: Limitations for add-ons
>>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-addons-153/ [7]
>>> Deadline - January 29
>>> 
>>> ================ 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/ [8]>, 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.
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-interact-217/results
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/240
> [4] 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_the_definition_of_context
> [5] https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/241
> [6]
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_elements_for_1and3_party_use
> [7] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-addons-153/
> [8] http://irc.w3.org/
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 15:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:21 UTC