- From: Martin Thomson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 04:14:44 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
@AramZS: > privacy is not defined nowhere. It is specifically defined in the charter's scope I want to push back on this a little. #6 didn't resolve with a definition. As @npdoty says, privacy is more complex than that. What the resolution to #6 does is what we often do in charters: sets some bounds on what we are doing. That resolution is what I see as being equivalent guard rails: something where we can easily identify as being unacceptable. Ideally, there is some distance between that and what we eventually produce. But the exact parameters of that are open for discussion. What "privacy" means here is - at least to the extent to which it applies to what we are doing - open to discussion. It is entirely possible that we never completely agree, but we produce a specification that we can all get behind anyway. That might be because it is flexible enough to allow for some variation in how it is interpreted or implemented. It might just be that it only captures the stuff we can achieve consensus on and so it is limited in applicability or scope. Asking that we have a precise definition for something that is so complex and subjective might make sense in a legal context (I'm not sure that it does). Here, we don't need that level of definition, especially as a constraint on the work we undertake. That is because our work is to build something out of the intersection of the competing definitions, concepts, and ideas that we each have. Not just about privacy, but security, accessibility, openness, fairness, and all the other things we each might value. -- GitHub Notification of comment by martinthomson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/31#issuecomment-1170735429 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2022 04:14:46 UTC