RE: link shorteners etc.

John,

Rather than try to dig up the original email I'll try to cover the highlights.

Contribute to the email list when you want to provide:


*         draft text you'd like to provide

*         thoughts for consideration on a matter to advance the discussion (not "+1s")

*         additive thoughts (you agree and want to provide an additional reason that has not been stated yet)

*         counter thoughts (you disagree and here is why)

We use straw polls/hums to get a feel in the room (virtual or real) to better understand how positions on a particular matter are shaping up.  This is not a formal vote.

We use Calls for Objections for each participant to weigh in on a choice the WG and Chairs are trying to make between competing POVs on the same topic.  Everyone who wants their voice heard should participate.  Again, this is not a formal vote.

Hope that helps.

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:15 AM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: David Singer; Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: link shorteners etc.

I don't understand.  How are we supposed to tell someone we think the language they are suggesting solves the issue being raised?

On Jun 26, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:


John,

No disrespect but I thought we had agreed as a group to halt sending "+1" emails on the list?

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:29 AM
To: David Singer
Cc: Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: link shorteners etc.

David,

Goog language, I think.

Regards,
John

On Jun 26, 2014, at 7:24 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com<mailto:singer@apple.com>> wrote:



For the avoidance of doubt, link shorteners are not destinations, and not destinations that a user intends to visit, and hence are third parties as defined in this recommendation."