W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: TAG on privacy by design for web applications

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:16:03 +0200
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "public-privacy@w3.org" <public-privacy@w3.org>
Message-Id: <557531CE-0078-4EDF-A3E7-0011938B3195@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Larry,

I'll point out that these draft minutes were public, and were posted to a public list.

While I'll happily respect the TAG's wishes to not point other parties at its minutes, I'd suggest that, if you indeed prefer that people don't refer to your draft minutes, you post them in a member-confidential context.

Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)







On 2012-04-29, at 17:47 +0200, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Thomas:
> 
> The TAG does post plain text versions of its minutes before review and approval, but I wish you wouldn't repost unapproved minutes, as you did:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2012AprJun/0056.html
> 
> The original email containing unapproved minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0127.html at least contains a pointer to the location of the location to be updated: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda, with a great URL for the (updated, formatted) minutes on the topic you quoted:
>                       http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-minutes#item06
> 
> TAG:
> 
> In future, I suggest when sending out Draft minutes in email to www-tag@w3.org that we explicitly add a disclaimer DRAFT, UNREVIEWED, DO NOT FORWARD OR CITE header or other disclaimer.
> 
> Given that the TAG occasionally discusses issue that are contentious and highly political nature, I'd like to more strongly discourage this practice.
> 
> 
> Public-Privacy discussion & TAG:
> 
> I think this is a "privacy" use case: 
> I have an expectation of audience and distribution. I know the meeting isn't recorded, and that while minutes are taken, I expect to have an opportunity to review the minutes after a draft is published and before they are approved. My expectation wasn't met. 
> 
> My fault?  I should have known that if I am concerned about being misquoted I have to watch the irc log in real time and correct errors BEFORE the draft minutes get published, and trust that the person cleaning up the notes doesn't inadvertently change the meaning of what I said.
> Thomas' fault? The TAG's fault for posting draft minutes publicly?
> 
> If there were APIs for any of this information flow -- if we somehow automated the processes by which minutes are taken, edited, drafts published, reviewed, approved -- would "API minimization" help ? How?
> 
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 16:16:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC