Re: today's (24 October 2012) call: canceled

I believe all the actions listed below for me now have text that's been
sent out to the ML. (Whether people agree with my text is another issue ^_^)

Given the number of issues, does it make sense for me to just bulk mark
them pending review and save time on the call?


On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Aleecia M. McDonald <>wrote:

> My apologies to the group. I have had an urgent personal matter call me
> away, and Matthias is not available to chair. This makes only the second
> call in over a year that I have missed, and I am particularly sorry to
> cancel chairing at the last minute.
> We have 50 overdue actions (owners are cc'ed) down from 55 last week, as
> listed below.
> - All actions will get a one week extension due to my not being able to
> make the call today.
>  - Expect overdue actions that are not Pending Review by next week to be
> closed for lack of activity, unless they are less than two weeks old (that
> is, assigned on 7 October or more recently.)
> Suggestions if you have fallen behind but still plan to complete your
> actions:
> - Use the time today when you would have been on the call.
>  - If you are working with someone else to complete the action, you know
> they have the call time free too, which might be a good time to talk.
> - Find another group member to take the action, and cc me and Nick on
> email. The new author will get an additional week.
> When you complete your text and send it to the mailing list, please
> remember to include "action-n" (where n is the number of the action) in the
> subject line and change the status of the action to Pending Review (not to
> Closed.) Feel free to ask for help with any mechanics.
> I notice we have people spending time on dlist posts arguing with each
> other in unproductive ways yet not getting to action items that could move
> documents -- and their ideas -- forward. This is not optimal.
> Overdue actions:
>  ACTION-311 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openMerge definitions of "party"<> Justin
> Brookman2012-10-19 Tracking Definitions and Compliance<>
> ACTION-312 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openMerge financial logging language<> Justin
> Brookman2012-10-19 Tracking Definitions and Compliance<>
> ACTION-310 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openAdd three options for identity providers<> Justin
> Brookman2012-10-18 ISSUE-99<>
> ACTION-309 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openCoordinate with David Singer to accord User Agent constraints in both
> specs <> Justin
> Brookman2012-10-18 Tracking Definitions and Compliance<>
> ACTION-255 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openWork on financial reporting text (with nick, ian) as alternative to
> legal requirements<> Alan
> Chapell2012-09-19 ACTION-264<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft updated 'share' definition to avoid concerns (with rigo and
> chris-p) <> Amy
> Colando2012-10-10 ACTION-262<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft text regarding existing contracts (with vinay)<> Amy
> Colando2012-10-03 ACTION-319<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft non-normative text on how to accomplish non-JS third parties
> that want to request for exceptions (with lou)<> Nick
> Doty2012-10-12 ACTION-284<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose barring other software from altering a DNT signal if the
> browser already set it<> Ian
> Fette2012-10-10 ACTION-304<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft proposal on url re-direction<> Ian
> Fette2012-10-11 ACTION-266<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openSuggest retention related to a timed grace period (with dwainberg)<> Ian
> Fette2012-10-10 ACTION-279<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openWrite an explanation of graduated response and a list of explanatory
> use cases <> Ian
> Fette2012-10-10 ACTION-313<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft normative text based on adrianba's exception proposal<> Ian
> Fette2012-10-12 ACTION-303<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft definition of "visit"<> Ian
> Fette2012-10-11 ACTION-302<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft intermediary requirements, without implementation details (with
> Brendan) <> Thomas
> Lowenthal2012-10-22 ACTION-321<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openSet up a call about discussing singer's list of questions about what
> information is needed in response headers and status resource<> Thomas
> Lowenthal2012-10-22 ACTION-258<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose 'should' for same-party and why<> Thomas
> Lowenthal2012-10-22 ACTION-323<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openShare results of what-the-response-is-for discussion<> Thomas
> Lowenthal2012-10-22 ACTION-286<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose DAA text regarding de-identification (for unlinkability
> discussion) <> Luigi
> Mastria2012-10-10 ACTION-276<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openProvide text regarding data retention, applicable to finanical
> logging data<> Luigi
> Mastria2012-10-10 ACTION-293<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft non-normative examples illustrating graduated response<> Jonathan
> Mayer2012-10-11 ACTION-298<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft examples for data minimization<> Jonathan
> Mayer2012-10-11 ACTION-285<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose non-normative text to add on to action-231 (with nick)<> Jonathan
> Mayer2012-10-10 ACTION-257<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPrepare text options for a potential Call for Objections on service
> providers <> Matthias
> Schunter2012-09-26 ACTION-238<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openFollow-up re: David, regarding purposes of the WKR<> Matthias
> Schunter2012-08-22 ACTION-273<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose text regarding multiple first parties<> Rob
> Sherman2012-10-10 ACTION-282<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openAdd to the TPE that at most one DNT header is permitted in any HTTP
> request (issue-150)<> David
> Singer2012-10-10 ACTION-268<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openEdit the TPE document to make sure that the final definition of
> parties is in sync across the two specifications<> David
> Singer2012-10-10 ACTION-307<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose non-normative text on 119 (with schunter)<> David
> Singer2012-10-11 ACTION-316<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft update on when service provider indication is necessary (with
> fielding) <> David
> Singer2012-10-12 ACTION-317<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft non-normative examples on same-party (issue-164)<> David
> Singer2012-10-12 ACTION-249<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openEnsure that the qualifiers reflect the permissions documented in the
> compliance document, due 10 october<> David
> Singer2012-10-10 Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)<>
> ACTION-320 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openWrite reference/examples as necessary for explaining out-of-band
> consent in TPE (with Joanne)<> David
> Singer2012-10-12 ACTION-277<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose non-normative text regarding contracts/other specifications<> David
> Singer2012-10-10 ACTION-308<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> open(with justin) to coordinate which document contains exceptions<> David
> Singer2012-10-11 ACTION-291<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openupdate to 3.5.2 to address different requirements regarding screen
> size <> Kevin
> Smith2012-10-10 ACTION-267<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose first/third party definitions from existing DAA documents<> Rachel
> Thomas2012-10-10 ACTION-287<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDefine "user expectation" as it's used in the context of the two
> documents. <> Rachel
> Thomas2012-10-10 Tracking Definitions and Compliance<>
> ACTION-289 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDefine "unlinkable" related to section 3.6 on unlinkable data in
> compliance document<> Rachel
> Thomas2012-10-10 Tracking Definitions and Compliance<>
> ACTION-270 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose existing DAA text for service providers<> Rachel
> Thomas2012-10-10 ACTION-251<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openAdd DNT:0 definition and non-normative text to Compliance<> Heather
> West2012-09-12 ACTION-271<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openUpdate service provider language to apply to first and third parties<> Heather
> West2012-10-10 ACTION-300<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openAdd a service provider option (or condense with option 1) from jmayer<> Heather
> West2012-10-11 ACTION-288<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openUpdate unlinkable with non-normative text from Shane<> Heather
> West2012-10-10 ACTION-280<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft updated text on UA requirements; explanatory text made more
> general; add 'prior to selecting DNT'; add examples; change MUST to SHOULD<> Shane
> Wiley2012-10-10 ISSUE-172<>
> ACTION-254 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft text on freq. capping that would avoid new definitions and/or
> remove redundant normative requirement (with nick and amy?)<> Shane
> Wiley2012-09-19 ACTION-274<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openPropose non-normative text on service providers to clarify
> "independent use" (with rvaneijk)<> Shane
> Wiley2012-10-10 ACTION-314<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft non-normative examples of how a multi-domain site technically
> can ask for exceptions<> Shane
> Wiley2012-10-12 ACTION-212<>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openDraft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT
> signal <> Shane
> Wiley2012-09-26 Tracking Definitions and Compliance<>
> ACTION-301 <>[image:
> (edit)]<>
> openEijk to draft explanation on intermediaries and inserted headers<> Rob
> van Eijk2012-10-11

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 22:20:58 UTC