search

patcg / patcg.github.io

Private Advertising Community Group
https://patcg.github.io/
4 stars 5 forks source link

clarify scope is not just browser features #3

Open npdoty opened 3 years ago

npdoty commented 3 years ago

Discussions at the initial teleconference made clear that participants are interested in private advertising technology beyond implementation just in web browsers/user agents and operating systems.

In particular, mobile apps that use web technologies (embedded web views, HTTP requests, etc.) and trusted server and server governance/audits were particularly proposed as relevant work items.

User- or client-facing technology seems in scope. Advertising server-to-server communication standards seem to be not the focus of the group.

We should come up with clearer text for the initial sections of the charter so as not to confuse potential participants.

AramZS commented 3 years ago

I am definitely open to making this clearer. Do you have an idea on how to rewrite the relevant text?

npdoty commented 2 years ago

One proposal, replace the initial two paragraphs of "Scope" with:

The Community Group will incubate new web platform features to support web advertising and provide users with privacy with a strong technical basis. Features may be designed for implementation by user agents — including non-browser agents like operating systems or mobile apps that use web technologies — and by servers providing client-facing functionality.

And expand "Out of Scope":

Features that support advertising but provide privacy by means that are primarily non-technical and features that are server-to-server without a user-facing component should be proposed elsewhere.

I'm not strongly wedded to any of this, I'm just trying to accurately capture what participants are already assuming will be worked on in this CG and what won't be.

seanturner commented 2 years ago

@npdoty this is definitely something that we should clarify.

npdoty commented 2 years ago

Maybe this change would help address #5 as well.

Should I open a PR with the change in https://github.com/patcg/patcg.github.io/issues/3#issuecomment-998416741?

AramZS commented 2 years ago

@npdoty I think this makes sense. Could you issue a PR, we'll have it open to any feedback by the group for a little while and then close it if there are no objections on the next call.