+1 Before we continue substantive work , we need an understanding of what path we're on. On 2013-10-25 1:27 PM, John Simpson wrote: > 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 17:31:28 UTC