Create 2024-01-17-minutes.md (#398)

meetings/2024-01-17-minutes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# TAG Privacy TF - Wed, 17 January 2024
+
+Present: Dan, Wendy, Pete, Nick, Jeffrey, Don, Christine
+Regrets: Amy
+
+## Admin
+DKA: will be meeting bi-weekly, dates TBD as TAG calendar settles
+
+DKA: asked Yves to publish new draft. Mentioned that on the w3c member call, with positive feedback. In response to questions, indicated we plan to go W3C statement track. Will send announcement, probably after TAG F2F. 
+
+## Issues
+
+### Vulnerable People, https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/issues/373
+
+DKA: we noted that we talk about vulnerable people in many places, it's probably reasonable to have a definition. Last week, thought we didn't want to remove the def, also consider Pete's Nov. comment. Should we revise?
+
+Pete: If we mean basically anybody, we should say so.
+
+Don: The most vulnerable people are those who don't know they are, e.g. those with a child in the army vulnerable to a scam they're unaware of. I like that the def points at unawareness, on both the person and the sites inability to tell whether they're dealing with a vulnerable person.
+
+DKA: we do say anyone can become vulnerable. 
+
+Nick: not everyone all the time. It's context-dependent, anyone could become vulnerable. 
+
+DKA: since Pete said he wouldn't hold out, should we close? Don, if you want to write an intro sentence.
+
+Don: sure. (Don to post a PR adding this text)
+
+Jeffrey: link from vuln section to defn. 
+
+Nick: +1
+
+Don: I'll also link from word "vulnerability" to 1.2 where it makes sense
+
+# PRs
+## 392 https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/392
+
+Jeffrey: Defining abuse of individuals, not of corporate systems
+
+Nick: right, spam wouldn't fall under this (harassment) type of abuse, but do we also need to make note of the spam type of system abuse? 
+
+DKA: if we drop the word "cruel," to "mistreatment of someone through digital means" then it covers spam
+
+DKA: suggeested change from "cruel treatment" to "mistreatement". Any disagreement?
+
+[no disagreement]
+
+Merged
+
+Nick: we are defining harassment as a particular kind of abuse, but not making explicit principles that are exclusively about harassment.
+[scribe missed some discussion of spam, in or out of privacy considerations]
+
+Jeffrey: Seems like the right balance to me. Explanatory text about harassment as particularly severe and reasons to pay more attention to those. 
+Nick: fine with me too.
+
+## https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/393
+
+Jeffrey: we said we'd look for should/must and say we weren't being strictly RFC 2119. Robin wrote a conformance section. I disagreed with one "must"
+
+DKA: can you add a comment. If there's not consensus, keep the existing text
+
+Nick: re conformance section, I think we shouldn't say "ignored"
+
+Jeffrey overridden? 
+
+Jeffrey: I'll merge the suggestions. Shall we merge the PR? 
+
+[thumbs up]
+
+## 394
+
+https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/394
+https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/394.html#deidentified-data
+
+Wendy: should they link to a filtered view?
+
+Jeffrey: I like them 
+
+DKA: +1
+
+Wendy: no objection to this form
+
+Nick: are the categories right, e.g. should non-retaliation apply to user-agents as well as websites?
+
+Jeffrey: welcome additional categories. Shouldn't block the PR
+
+DKA: merge? I'll make sure Yves knows we made updates.
+
+Jeffrey: I'll file a bug suggesting linking the principles tags to list by audience. 
+
+DKA: I'll send a note to the AC. Then we'll figure out the statement track. This will (maybe) be the first thing going on the Statement track. 
+
+DKA: adjourned. See slack for next meeting.