- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 16:38:16 -0400
- To: Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, w3c-ac-forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Samuel Weiler <weiler@w3.org>, Fuqiao Xue <xfq@w3.org>, W3C Strategy Team <team-strat@w3.org>, public-new-work@w3.org
On 7/7/2020 1:20 PM, Pete Snyder wrote: > 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. This issue was also identified by the i18n folks. The Director sees 2 cases in transition requests: 1- horizontal reviews were done but substantive changes occurred since and didn't get reviewed. 2- horizontal reviews were done more than 2 years ago and the specification didn't get a new look at since because it didn't get changed. At the minimum, we would expect to reject those in the (upcoming) automatic Director transition approvals. We can certainly argue around whether a 2 years timeframe is too long. 2 years matches the maximum lapse between 2 Candidate Recommendation Snapshots (part of Process 2020). Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2020 20:38:22 UTC