Re: Rotating Privacy Review Responsibilites

> On Dec 20, 2019, at 10:20 , Theresa O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Pete wrote:
> 
>> As we discussed on the PING call today, there is much interest in having
>> a standing rotation for doing privacy reviews.
> […]
>> Open and eager for peoples’ thoughts on this!
> 
> As I said on the call, I'm in favor of both increasing the number of
> people willing and able to do reviews, and coming up with some way to
> ensure that reviews get assigned roughly evenly across that group of
> people. While I'm highly sympathetic to the problems you're trying to
> solve, I don't think this is a good approach.
> 
> I'm a participant on the TAG which, along with PING and several other
> groups[1], is charged with performing horizontal reviews at W3C. One
> significant difference between the TAG and PING is that the TAG is a
> small, elected/appointed body, whereas PING membership is open to all
> who are interested in privacy.
> 
> TAG participants have an obligation—either to the body who elected them
> (the AC), or to the person who appointed them (the Director)—to
> discharge our duties.
> 
> I don't think joining PING (which again, anyone who has an interest in
> privacy can join and is encouraged to join) imposes a similar obligation
> on folks.

Indeed, we *want* people to join PING. Putting a consequent obligation on it would be a strong disincentive. 

I’m on PING because I’m the AC Rep and I care a lot and want to follow the work; Tess is on because she’s generally interested in web architecture. If this went ahead, I’d feel obliged to leave because I wouldn’t be able to follow through on the obligation (either because of time or because I don’t consider myself enough of a privacy expert).

> 
> 
> Tess
> 
> 1. https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview#How_to_get_horizontal_review
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Friday, 20 December 2019 18:27:28 UTC