- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:38:44 -0700
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Shane / Rob, thanks a lot for documenting your concerns on the mailing list. Rob just sent out his text proposal. I understand that Yahoo's current preference is "no such field should be included". As a consequence, we plan to issue a CfO. If either of you propose text that has the potential for everyone to "live with it", I could could invest some more time to discuss the proposal. Otherwise, I will issue a CfO before our call on Monday. The question for the CfO will be: "To what extent and in what form should TPE allow a site to publish the third party resources that may be used in a machine readable form?" The first phase will be to ask for alternative text proposals, the second phase is a short discussion to explore compromises, the final phase is collecting objections (see our web-page for the details). Regards, matthias -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Monday Call Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:42:30 +0000 Resent-From: public-tracking@w3.org Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:41:54 -0700 From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org> Hi Folks, I have not received any objections to having a call on monday. I suggest to have our next call on May 01 at 9am Pacific (normal slot). Main Goal is to ensure that we have text for all issues for this release. I cleaned the list of issues that we plan to include in this release: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3ATPE-CR-April-2017 (this are the issues that we started and that in a recent discussion we declared high priority). Based on the discussion on the mailing list, I do not see any need to discuss whether we need the other-parties fileld in the TSR: - Some folks believe that it is an essential requirement for EU "specific consent" - Others believe that it must not be included and basically veto its inclusion. I suggest that we go to a Call for Objections to structure this discussion. If (and only if) I see convergence onto an "i can live with this" consensus, then we may spend some time discussing. Otherwise, it is CfO time... Regards, matthias --------- Agenda --------- 1. Issue 13: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/13 2. Issue 09: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/issues/9 3. Planning: What else is needed to get sufficient text as input.
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2017 21:39:18 UTC