- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:32:50 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
On Mar 9, 2011, at 15:47 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 15:37 +0100, Robin Berjon a écrit : >> But is this really a risk for privacy-related deliverables? > > Have you already met a lawyer? >:) I actually lived with one for a year :) >> 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). That is certainly true, and a concern. What I'd like to know is if that's due to the people who would be interested in doing so not knowing about this group, not wanting to be in this group, or not existing at all in the first place. >> 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. I think that they've been productive on the API side, but it would certainly be better if they were productive for privacy documents directly as well. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 13:33:21 UTC