Re: Privacy CG draft charter

Name-wise, we could keep it simple. Privacy Community Group: PCG,
pronounced like “package”.
—Tom

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 05:50 Samuel Weiler <weiler@w3.org> wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> There is some interesting privacy specification work afoot, most of
> which is not quite ready to be in a WG.  Attendees at TPAC agreed to
> incubate that work in a new Privacy Community Group (CG).  The Privacy
> Interest Group (PING) will continue to handle horizontal review and
> general guidance docs, such as the threat model doc it just adopted and
> the questionnaire that was updated in collaboration with the TAG earlier
> this year.
>
> Below is a proposed charter for the new CG.  Discussions about chairs
> for the CG are still in progress - I hope we will wrap those up in the
> next few days.  In the meantime, I invite discussion on the charter.
>
>
> "The mission of the Privacy Community Group is to improve user privacy
> on the web. This community group will incubate the next set of
> privacy-focused web standards to improve browser behavior for user
> privacy. This group coordinates closely with the Privacy Interest Group
> (PING); it is expected that high-level privacy concepts, threat models,
> etc., developed in the Privacy Interest Group will be incorporated into
> the technical standards produced in this community group. Initial
> participants will include multiple browser vendors, privacy advocates,
> web application developers, and other interested parties. This group's
> work will be done primarily in GitHub."  [Thanks to Jatinder Mann for
> this draft.]
>
> As in the draft charter, I expect the CG and PING to work in close
> cooperation.  There was some discussion of what tooling, if any, to
> share with PING.  I suspect the answers will be: separate GitHub repos,
> separate mailing list, and same Slack instance (if the CG wants to use
> Slack at all).  I trust the CG chairs to sort that out.
>
> Some have observed that incubation is still (also) in scope for PING,
> per the draft charter that went out for AC review in June.  My
> preference and recommendation is to not change the PING charter at this
> time.  We all understand the new split of work proposed above, and there
> is no harm from leaving incubation in scope for PING.  PING's new
> charter has already been delayed by other things, and I don't want to
> further delay it.  Assuming all goes as planned, we can clean this up
> the next time we revise the PING charter.  And if this CG were to
> somehow not be the right thing, incubation at least has a fallback home
> in PING.
>
> Lastly, if anyone has a slick name for the new CG that results in a
> usable and pronouncable acronym and might help newcomers understand the
> differences between PING and the CG, I would love the suggestion.
> "Privacy CG" doesn't capture much, and "Privacy Incubation CG" doesn't
> have a good acronym.  (I think renaming of PING might also be in scope,
> so feel free to be creative.)
>
> -- Sam Weiler, W3C/MIT
>
>