W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2013

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

From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:27:31 -0700
Cc: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E6051A9B-EFA9-4A79-B23A-4ABBD64DA6D2@consumerwatchdog.org>
To: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC