Re: W3C Director's Blog on EME

Thank you for the clarification, Philippe.

Cory

On 03/09/2017 09:18 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote:
> On 3/9/2017 10:11 AM, Cory Doctorow wrote:
>> Regarding confidentiality:
>>
>> I understood that member-confidentiality was a duty of all W3C
>> participants, not just members.
>>
>> Is the process that W3C staff are free to disclose member-confidential
>> material when they feel it is warranted, without consulting the affected
>> members, but members are not?
> 
> The W3C staff can indeed change the confidentiality level of information.
> 
>> Are there any guidelines on which circumstances warrant unilateral
>> waiver of member confidentiality, or is it a purely ad hoc process?
>>
>> Is this documented anywhere?
> 
> [[
> This document clearly indicates which information must be available to
> Members or the public, even though that information was initially
> communicated on Team-only or Member-only channels. Only the Team and
> parties authorized by the Team change the level of confidentiality of
> this information. When doing so:
> 
> *    The Team must use a version of the information that was expressly
> provided by the author for the new confidentiality level. In Calls for
> Review and other similar messages, the Team should remind recipients to
> provide such alternatives.
> *    The Team must not attribute the version for the new confidentiality
> level to the author without the author's consent.
> *    If the author has not conveyed to the Team a version that is
> suitable for another confidentiality level, the Team may make available
> a version that reasonably communicates what is required, while
> respecting the original level of confidentiality, and without
> attribution to the original author.
> ]]
> https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#confidentiality-change
> 
>> I ask because I've been repeatedly warned -- even when no breach
>> occurred -- that member confidentiality is paramount to the
>> organization, and having reviewed the process guidance at the firm and
>> urgent suggestion of both the W3C CEO and communications director, I
>> didn't see anything about this.
> 
> This has been part of our Process for quite a while now, so I'm
> surprised no one pointed you to it before.
> 
>> Can members petition the W3C to make other member-confidential material
>> public, or is this a purely internal matter? I would certainly make such
>> petitions if I knew they were part of the process, and I'd love to know
>> more about that process.
> 
> The Process doesn't say that you cannot ask the Team to request a change
> of confidentiality, within the limits established by the Process. It's
> safe to assume that, without author's consent, we would be very
> selective or even reluctant. In addition, at this time, I doubt we'd be
> interested in disclosing a lot of information from the previous poll
> since we're focusing on the next steps. While there was a significant
> number of objections as I mentioned before (and not everyone share the
> opinions or way forward in those objections by the way), there was also
> a even more significant number of support to move forward. We all know
> there are organizations on both sides.
> 
> Philippe