Re: Rotating Privacy Review Responsibilites

I'd suggest two changes:

1) Assign reviews evenly across the individuals who have volunteered,
rather than their organizations. This allows larger organizations like
Google to contribute more reviews than smaller ones.
2) Per the Apple folks' comments, encourage medium-to-large organizations
to contribute at least one volunteer, but don't require it.

The current list of volunteers could be stored in the same repo that holds
the review issues. If we assign/claim reviews the same way the TAG does
<https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues>, by using Github's issue
assignment system, the chairs will have to make sure everyone in the list
is a member of the w3cping org.

Jeffrey

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:56 PM Pete Snyder <psnyder@brave.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> As we discussed on the PING call today, there is much interest in having a
> standing rotation for doing privacy reviews.  We discussed a couple of
> options for how to organize this on the call, but I wanted to suggest the
> following, at least to get discussion going.
>
>  * Organizations with 2 or more members on PING are responsible for
> performing periodic privacy reviews
>  * Reviews will be assigned as group requests and spec needs dictate
>  * Reviews are expected to be completed w/in 2 weeks of being assigned
>  * A general request for experts / interest in a particular spec will go
> out before "pulling from the pool”
>  * The pool will be randomized, and no organization would will be assigned
> a review until every organization has performed a review (e.g. all relevant
> member orgs will have performed max 1 more review than any other member org)
>  * Reviews will be discussed on a PING call before being formalized into
> action
>  * Its appreciated but not required to share notes about the review before
> the relevant PING call
>  * Pete and Nick will be as available as possible to assist with privacy
> reviews and filing issues
>
> Under the above criteria, the following member organizations would be
> responsible for performing reviews (# individuals from that member org in
> parens).
>
>  * Apple, Inc. (6)
>  * Brave Software Inc. (3)
>  * CANTON CONSULTING (2)
>  * Center for Democracy and Technology (2)
>  * China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT) (3)
>  * China Mobile Communications Corporation (2)
>  * Duck Duck Go, Inc. (4)
>  * Google, Inc. (10)
>  * Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique
> (INRIA) (2)
>  * Microsoft Corporation (9)
>  * Nokia Corporation (2)
>  * OpenLink Software Inc. (2)
>
> If the above looks good, I will take the action item to shuffle and make
> public the above list, so we can keep track of things and make sure work is
> fairly shared.
>
> Open and eager for peoples’ thoughts on this!
>
> Best,
> Pete
>