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: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:30:57 -0400
Message-ID: <526AAAD1.60802@appnexus.com>
To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
CC: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
+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

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