- From: Aram Zucker-Scharff via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 15:10:34 +0000
- To: public-patcg@w3.org
This and the CG represent Private Advertising Technology development interests. Emphasis here on *Technology*. Where proposals do not have either *Advertising* or *Technology* as a primary focus they are out of scope. I would consider both the IEE and the First Party Sets proposals for instance to be out of scope of both PAT CG and WG since the first is not primarily a technology project and the second is a broad technology not focused on just advertising. PAT CG & the proposed WG are singularly focused on this specific combination of privacy, advertising and technology. Anything that does not rise to this standard is out of scope by design. > > Features designed primarily for privacy-related transparency and control should be developed elsewhere.. > Why would the W3C not want to include such approaches to Private Advertising Technology (PATs) in its work? See above. There are venues appropriate to such measures already in existence as per their technical specifics. > > I don't not want to spend my time on proposals that provide no technical guarantees. > Why would providing legal guarantees support by technical guarantees not be a good proposal to improve privacy in advertising using technology? > I'm interested in finding the best proposals and not constraining innovation by restricting proposals. Without constraints all discussions will grow infinitely. The scope of this WG and the PAT CG are intentionally narrow. > > The original idea for the creation of this group was to only focus on the technical details for advertising use cases, with an aim to actually make progress. > Now that the group has met a few times and more people joined I'm advocating to broaden that and ensure that solutions other than those that restrict data sharing are bought forward in the standards setting arena. There are already enough groups that require W3C member attention! I have not seen any indication in our meetings or discussions that there is an interest for such an increase in scope of the CG. I have not seen any of the proposed changes to the CG charter provide language that would intend to increase scope in that way. The CG can, of course, coordinate and alert membership to proposals relevant to our interests and discussions, but that does not make it the appropriate location for such discussions. I am also opposed to such a change. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AramZS Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patwg-charter/issues/8#issuecomment-1081994411 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2022 15:10:36 UTC