- 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
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 illustrate). > 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. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:48:18 UTC