Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Devices and Sensors Working Group Charter'

Thank you Tantek, I’ve followed up in the first issue, but my comments there I think apply equally to most (all?) the other issues.

The other issue I wanted to discuss first, before getting into GH back-and-forth, is how to address the privacy questions. The WG is pointing frequently to reviews done 3-4-5 years ago, when (if my understanding is correct) privacy reviews were done very differently (i.e. it was previously thought of as sufficient to just note privacy issues, reviews now focus on having specs solve the problems they introduce).

In other words, a privacy review done 3-4-5 years ago does not reflect a current approach to privacy, in W3C or on the web in general.

Wanted to discuss / get thoughts here on the above before surfacing on GH.

Pete

> On Jul 7, 2020, at 12:12 AM, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi David and Pete,
> 
> Thank you for your replies. Appreciated.
> 
> Per request from Samuel Weiler, I have filed individual issues for
> each specification mentioned in Mozilla's DAS charter feedback formal
> objection, so that we can have parallel discussions on each to try to
> reach consensus.
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/98
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/99
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/100
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/101
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/102
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/103
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/104
> https://github.com/w3c/dap-charter/issues/105
> 
> Thanks for your consideration, and let's follow-up in each issue accordingly.
> 
> Tantek
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:25 AM Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you for these Tantek,
> [...]
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:52 AM David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Tantek
> [...]
> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 19, 2020, at 10:03 , Tantek Çelik via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review:
>>> Devices and Sensors Working Group Charter' (Advisory Committee) for Tantek
>>> Çelik.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The reviewer's organization suggests changes to this Charter, and only
>>> supports the proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection].
>>> 
>>> Additional comments about the proposal:
>>>  Although Mozilla is generally supportive of the work being undertaken by
>>> DAS, we would like to see some changes in the Charter and deliverables
>>> before we would be supportive of rechartering the Working Group (Formal
>>> Objection).
>>> 
>>> On the the grounds of privacy, and given a lack of implementer support, we
>>> would like the group to cease work on the following specifications:
>>> 
>>> * Battery API
>>> * Proximity sensor API
>>> * Ambient light sensor API
>>> 
>>> We would like to see those published as Working Group Notes instead.
>>> 
>>> We believe it would be prudent for the System WakeLock API to go through
>>> the WICG process until it gets implementation commitment from at least a
>>> second browser vendor. Similarly, the Fold Angle specification should be
>>> incubated in the WICG before it becomes a working group deliverable. For
>>> Fold Angle, we'd also like to see closer collaboration and input from the
>>> CSS WG on the design.
>>> 
>>> Having said that, we would be comfortable with having WICG incubated specs
>>> being explicitly listed as charter as work items the working group could
>>> adopt at a future date. However, we'd like to see them listed in a manner
>>> similar to the Web Apps WG Charter's section on WICG Specs [1] (i.e.,
>>> separated out of the main deliverables list for the working group).
>>> 
>>> Where we already have an existing Web APIs, e.g., Geolocation Sensor,
>>> Orientation Sensor, we would prefer the working group also cease work on
>>> those items and instead focus on evolving the existing specifications. As
>>> is evident with the Geolocation API [2], implementers have continued to
>>> make significant privacy and security enhancements to existing APIs, and
>>> those enhancements have made their way back to the W3C. As such, we feel
>>> it's unnecessary to have duplicate specifications.
>>> 
>>> Finally, Mozilla has significant concerns about the inclusion of the
>>> Network Information API in the charter (as a specification to potentially
>>> adopt from the WICG) — Mozilla's public position is that this API is
>>> "harmful" to the Web as the information that it provides is unreliable and,
>>> at the same time, open to privacy abuses. As we have stated publicly [3],
>>> we believe it is "better that sites use methods that dynamically adapt to
>>> available bandwidth, as that is more accurate and likely to be applicable
>>> in the moment". Or, alternatively, use newer declarative solutions, such as
>>> "lazy loading" images and alike.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/05/webapps-charter.html#wicgspecs
>>> [2]
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2020Jun/0006.html
>>> [3] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#netinfo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The reviewer's organization intends to participate in these groups:
>>>  - Devices and Sensors Working Group
>>> 
>>> The reviewer's organization:
>>>  - intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments.
>>>  - intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience
>>> reports.
>>>  - intends to develop products based on this work.
>>> 
>>> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
>>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/das-2020/ until 2020-06-19.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> The Automatic WBS Mailer
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> David Singer
>> 
>> singer@mac.com
>>

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2020 17:20:37 UTC