Re: Selecting a subset of texts for preparing ISSUE-5 for a call for objection

I thought we called that option 3.5. It was an idea, somewhat different 
from had been polled on, and I didn't think we had made a decision that 
would be the route forward.

On 2013-10-25 4:08 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:
> As we discussed on the call last week, if we were to proceed under 
> some version of Options 3 or 4 (under the poll), we would put a 
> definition of tracking in TPE.
>
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 3:56 PM, David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com 
> <mailto:dwainberg@appnexus.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>>
>>> <Mail Attachment.gif>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>