- From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:46:12 -0400
- To: 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>
Hi Shane, Yes, we will an updated plan to present to the group by next Wednesday's call. On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:05 PM, 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 17:46:42 UTC