Re: [meetings] Taking up Topics API for Next Meeting or Future Meeting? (#32)

I agree with @dmarti on all the first two points. 

Regarding whether we take it up in the next formal meeting: if we want this group to be broadly supportive of efforts to develop privacy-preserving advertising technologies, as I believe is the general intent, we will want to be thoughtful about giving proposals attention in a timely manner. I have concerns that if the group becomes too involved with a specific aspect of advertising, those interested in pursing efforts in other areas will seek alternate venues and we will fail to capitalize on the potential for this group to unify and consolidate the community's efforts.

As a case in point, if we don't provide airtime for Topics, we put the proposers in a position in which they have to decide whether to wait until we're ready, or pursue the effort independent of this group. I'm confident the latter would be the case and that, rather than becoming the promised point of convergence I think we were all wanting PATCG to be, this group would be yet another of the may places where part of the work is done.

Using formal meetings like we did the first one: to inform the larger group about a problem space and some of the ways in which it is being approached, then using subgroups to further develop things, seems like it provides the best balance of knowing what could be worked on and doing the work. In light of that, I suggest we crowdsource other broad topics, akin to the "attribution" topic of the first meeting, and figure out how we go about deciding when we might make them the agenda topics. Doing this will give those pursuing proposals like Topics, and the community, useful information for deciding if and when this is the right place to engage.

To be clear, I did hear the pleas to focus on attribution so that meaningful progress can be made and I agree with that sentiment, but I think we have the capacity and diversity of expertise to pursue multiple work-streams in parallel and make progress across them. While I would venture the majority of us are interested in, and supportive of, solving attribution as a prime objective, I'm confident many don't have the inclination or capacity to make significant contributions to the effort, but would be willing and able to pursue something else and I think we would do well to cultivate other domains where they can make contributions while attribution gets advanced.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by bmayd
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/meetings/issues/32#issuecomment-1037250376 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Saturday, 12 February 2022 15:04:06 UTC