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: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:02:12 +0000
To: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
CC: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCCF036E573F0142BD90964789F720E3141D6EAF@GQ1-MB01-02.y.corp.yahoo.com>
Great - thank you Justin.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Brookman [mailto:jbrookman@cdt.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation); public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

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 18:03:37 UTC

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