- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:53:00 -0400
- To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, James Rosewell <james@51degrees.com>, Kaustubha Govind <kaustubhag@google.com>, Theresa O'Connor <hober@apple.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, "yoavweiss@chromium.org" <yoavweiss@chromium.org>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>, "matthew.hancox@ing.com" <matthew.hancox@ing.com>, "david.verroken@ing.com" <david.verroken@ing.com>
- Cc: "public-privacycg@w3.org" <public-privacycg@w3.org>
Hi Travis! On 2022-06-06 14:09, Travis Leithead wrote: > > [..] I’m unsure how one would go about removing FPS from WICG. > Perhaps the WICG chairs can advise? > > The WICG is home to over 120 <https://wicg.io/> unique incubations at > varying stages of maturity and implementation. While I have been a > co-chair, we have graduated numerous proposals into other venues, and > archived others at the request of their owners, but we've never forcibly > removed any incubations (even when they appear inactive for years). I > think it would set a bad precedent to start now. The WICG is a field for > sowing ideas; for this reason our criteria for acceptance is very low. I think a potentially important point is at risk of finding itself buried under James's usual anti-privacy activism. The status of FPS in WICG is unusual and (to me) unexpected. The WICG is intended for incubation of new features and early standard proposals. FPS has already been incubated quite a lot, and the incubation didn't pan out. I'm not suggesting that FPS be shut down — as we all know, sometimes standards take trying more than once — but I would encourage WICG chairs to be particularly careful that it does not impinge upon the WICG's reputation. There is already significant grumbling in the community that the WICG is primarily a venue for the standards-washing of Google's plans; it would be very unfortunate if the WICG found itself used as justification to ship FPS in a browser. It also appears that Kaustubha and the Privacy CG chairs have a different appreciation of the status of implementer support. Given the importance that having multiple implementations holds in our processes and community, this is an issue that seems worth clarifying. Kaustubha: do you mind explaining your conclusion on this point? Again, I don't think that having just one implementer interested means FPS shouldn't go to the WICG (some things there have zero implementers interested and that's fine!) but we should at least be able to reach consensus on who is interested and how that impacts the legitimacy of shipping the feature! -- Robin Berjon VP Data Governance Acting VP Marketing Analytics The New York Times Company
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2022 18:53:16 UTC