W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Proposal for additional deliverables in rechartering DAP

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:47:59 +0100
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
Message-ID: <1299682079.2640.1624.camel@altostratustier>
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 15:37 +0100, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> > I'm torn about this one; I think there is work to be done in the area,
> > there is clearly interest from the industry, but I don't know that we
> > have a clear enough scope of the work to put something in the charter as
> > a Recommendation track deliverable.
> I certainly hear your concerns, but I wonder if we can't have it
> anyway. To me, scoping problems are largely related to patent policy.
> If the scope of a deliverable is too fuzzy, lawyers at some companies
> will be afraid of greenlighting participation because they won't be
> able to assess the risk to the company's portfolio. We may not all
> enjoy taking that into account, but it's part of the game.

That was indeed one of my concerns.

> But is this really a risk for privacy-related deliverables? 

Have you already met a lawyer? >:)

> Or was your concern more that this should go into a group that has
> that issue as its primary focus?

That was another concern indeed; more concretely, I think we have
struggled a bit to find people ready to invest their time in editing
"privacy-only" documents (as the lack of take up on the bp work

>  What I like about keeping it in this group is that since our API
> deliverables are privacy-sensitive, it creates a built-in feedback
> loop. I've found this quite useful so far, though of course I can
> appreciate that not everyone might want to be exposed to all the
> discussions.

I agree the feedback loop is useful, and I have personally found the
privacy discussions in the group to be quite useful in many ways; but I
want to make sure they would be also productive, not only enjoyable.

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:48:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:48 UTC