- From: Aram Zucker-Scharff via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:27:52 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
With no progress on this I think that it is clear that unless this is resolved by #3 there is not a clear path forward on this issue. I do not see another eligible pull request. Further: > question for browser vendors. Will they confirm they will not interfere with solutions that do not require them to make changes? After some reflection, I'm not sure this is a useful question? This group does not have binding power over browser vendors. Further... in order to progress in technological development we cannot guarantee eternal backwards compatibility (which is the only framework in which I can understand this question, please correct if you intended something different). While browsers generally have been very generous with backwards compatibility there have been numerous situations where features were overwritten, made irrelevant, or turned off by future development. Just to take one major example which had serious detractors: the end of Flash in the browser. It is assumed that any piece of technology, including browsers, will alter or depreciate features. To ask them to do otherwise is to ask the impossible. Not to mention it would be a major threat to their ability to maintain safe and secure software. No technology has remained completely static in that way except maybe... RSS... and to accomplish that it declared itself in a development freeze, which is something I don't expect any browsers to do. > I was thinking of another talented engineer who confirmed they did not consider options that did not align to browser vendors stated positions. That is damaging for innovation. This is an open venue. Anyone is free to engage. I have--as an individual--argued strongly and loudly against at least one of pretty much every major participant's various development efforts and I'm still here, still have a job, and am still talking about it. I don't really see people unable to talk about their opposition to any of the work done here or on privacy in general. In fact there are plenty of very vocal people. The CG is an open group, anyone may join and speak or contribute to a thread. If an individual or a representative of an organization truly does not feel comfortable speaking up, they may contact the chairs privately and we can consider including their objections as part of a larger report. I'm not really interested in engaging with this claim that this process somehow excludes a silent majority that would object if only they weren't so frightened of **something**. We invite feedback in public, via email to the chairs, or through any trade group or other entity that wishes to participate. The IAB and the Center for Democracy and Technology have both sent participants (just to name two examples of non-tech/browser/publisher organizations). There are numerous ways to participate. Please stop making arguments grounded in invisible feedback. --- @jwrosewell If #3 does not cover your concerns raised at the top of this thread I do not see a clear suggestion in this thread. Please supply a PR if you wish to move forward. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AramZS Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patcg.github.io/issues/5#issuecomment-1090956299 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2022 00:27:54 UTC