- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:08:50 -0700
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Frank.Dawson@nokia.com, Art.Barstow@nokia.com, runnegar@isoc.org, wseltzer@w3.org, public-privacy@w3.org
Maybe we should pick a spec that is not too large, might have interesting un-exposed privacy concerns, and use it as a learning vehicle? On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:59 , Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote: > On 2012-09-13, at 08:28 -0700, <Frank.Dawson@nokia.com> wrote: > >> But before that discussion on methodology and proper roadmap points for such assessments, it would be good to go back and get some clarity form the W3C on what the chartered purpose and scope is for the PING. The above discussion about providing resources for conducting SPA reviews is incumbent on having a mandate. Of course, as has been recently seen in the IETF Privacy Directorate, it also will have a success factor on sufficiently skilled resources that have an understanding of W3C working group way-of-working. > > We're increasingly writing a requirement to seek privacy review (from this group) into WG charters. This group should assume that it has the mandate to provide review and to have that review taken seriously and responded to by other groups. > > Now, we need to operationalize that and make it happen. > > > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 16:09:26 UTC