Re: [Call for objections] Network interaction

Jack, thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, there was a mistake 
synchronizing the dates as Nick and I worked in parallel. I will send 
out an updated agenda asap, also including the issues raised by David 
Wainberg.

The dates that Nick sent for the Call for Objections on ISSUE 217 are 
correct. It is already open since yesterday and will get closed on 
December 18th (extended deadline due to the holidays). The agenda will 
be updated accordingly. The chairs do not consider the Call for 
Objections premature, since there were no additional text proposals 
after the last conference call on November 20th, when the deadline for 
text proposals was extended.

Best regards,
Ninja


Am 03.12.13 17:09, schrieb Jack L. Hobaugh Jr:
> Nick, Carl, Matthias,
>
> The email below regarding ISSUE-217/ISSUE-228 clearly conflicts with 
> the agenda sent by Matthias on December 3 that states:
>
> ISSUES-217, -228 (definition of network interaction and user 
> interaction) (Carl)
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Revise_network_interaction_definition 
> <http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Transience_Collection>
>     December 04: M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; 
> Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
>     December 11: M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / 
> determine consensus
>
> According to the agenda, ISSUES-217, -228 are open for additional 
> change proposals through tomorrow and the Call for Objections would 
> not occur until December 11, a week from tomorrow.  Accordingly, the 
> email sent below appears to have been sent prematurely.
>
> Please confirm that the TPWG will follow the agenda for ISSUES-217, -228.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jack
>
> *Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> *Network Advertising Initiative| Counsel & Senior Director of Technology
> 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341| jack@networkadvertising.org 
> <mailto:jack@networkadvertising.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org 
> <mailto:npdoty@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hello WG,
>>
>> As discussed on the teleconference November 20th, we're issuing a 
>> Call for Objections on ISSUE-217/ISSUE-228 regarding the 
>> definition(s) of network interaction. If you have an objection to one 
>> or more of the proposed options, please describe your objection via 
>> this poll with clear and specific reasoning. The purpose of the poll 
>> is not to gather a count.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/49311/tpwg-interact-217/
>>
>> The poll is already open, and will close on December 18th (slightly 
>> longer than usual duration given the holidays).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick (for Carl)
>>
>> (BCC public-tracking-announce for those not following public-tracking 
>> closely)
>