Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

Thanks  for raising this Shane. The group needs to understand fully how the chairs and the W3C staff perceived the information received in the poll, the lack of comments by a majority of the working group and the observations made in the telephone meeting and how they propose to go forward in a meaningful way.
Regards,
John


On Oct 25, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Matthias,
> 
> Will the Co-Chairs and W3C Staff be sharing the official position on how best to move forward post the poll results review?  On Oct 16th I asked how long we should expect for this to occur and the response at that time was about 2 weeks.  With that in mind, it's my expectation we'll learn this at next week's meeting.  Is that a fair expectation?
> 
> Thank you,
> - Shane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:46 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection
> 
> Hi Team,
> 
> 
> for preparation of next week's call, I would like to assemble a shortlist of proposals that we use for the call for objections:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition
> 
> I took the liberty and added the text discussed in last week's telco (revised Proposal 1) as a first initial candidate since I perceived support from several members of the group.
> 
> PLEASE/TODO:
> If you cannot live with any of the proposals currently shortlisted, please nominate an extra one to shortlist while explaining
>     - What is the shortcoming of the currently shortlisted proposals
>     - How does the newly added proposal mitigate this shortcoming
> 
> This will enable me to compile a list of (hopefully) less than 7 alternatives to then use as the set of alternatives on our call for objection.
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> matthias
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 17:28:01 UTC