Re: updated draft charter

Good enough, to know its on the radar. I don't think I saw that explicitly in the charter but I will look again. That's really my main request, that the scope objective be clear, rather than just say "must consider privacy".

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan

On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:05 PM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Jun 6, 2012, at 19:30 , SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> [bryan] Does "system settings" mean this is unspecified, or would we define requirements at least? The point of the API I recommended is that we need a semantic, normative way for apps to make privacy assertions and for the user to accept them in informed consent. The management of privacy preferences on a system wide basis I agree is a detail of system settings, but will there be an API for that? If there isn't I think it will be difficult to promote a consistent privacy experience for users, i.e. the experience on different devices may vary widely. We would like to avoid that by providing this as an appropriately permitted app that can be deployed across different Web-based devices.
> 
> I don't want to presume of the shape that it will take at this point. I think that the important thing to note is that this falls under the scope of system settings. Beyond that, whether system settings look like a regular preferences API with some preferences being specified with defined, required behaviour, or if it's a bunch of different small APIs, is really up to the group to decide. I suspect it will be the former, and I would very much support it including mandatory privacy settings, but I don't believe that that ought be solved now (the sooner we charter, the sooner the group can address that :)
> 
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 22:12:31 UTC