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 15:56:46 -0400
Message-ID: <526ACCFE.6090209@appnexus.com>
To: Marc Groman <mgroman@networkadvertising.org>, Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I was confused by that as well, Justin. I thought one option on the 
table was to work on the TPE only.

On 2013-10-25 3:26 PM, Marc Groman wrote:
> I don't know that I agree with that.  I think there are potential 
> paths forward that do not require those terms to be defined in a TPE.
>
> ---
> *
> **Marc M. Groman*
> President & Chief Executive Officer
> *Network Advertising Initiative*
> 1634 Eye Street NW., Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-835-9810| mgroman@networkadvertising.org 
> <mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
>
>> Well, we're still shoring up the options for definitions of tracking 
>> and parties this week.  Those are foundational concepts, and will 
>> need to be defined no matter how the group proceeds (unless it were 
>> to shut down work entirely).  So people should continue to work 
>> together to help consolidate options (and I appreciate that you have 
>> been offering constructive text and options, David!),
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:30 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com 
>> <mailto:dwainberg@appnexus.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> +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 19:57:12 UTC

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