W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > April 2017

Fwd: Monday Call

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>
Message-ID: <d524947a-5d3f-90c5-315d-b1d1060b2ede@schunter.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).


-------- 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:
(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

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"
then we may spend some time discussing. Otherwise, it is CfO time...



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:34 UTC