Add some nuance to 'drop the feature' #72
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Please review, @pes10k. |
|
Certainly looks good to me :) |
|
lgtm @hober ! |
dbaron
approved these changes
May 5, 2020
Comment on lines
+888
to
+889
| whether it is exposing the minimum amount of data necessary, | ||
| and other possible mitigations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder a little bit whether it's good to focus particularly on data minimization rather than all the other points in the mitigations section other than this one. (Although "default privacy settings" and "making a privacy impact assessment" don't really feel like mitigations, the others do...)
torgo
approved these changes
May 6, 2020
|
Discussed an approved on the call 6-may-2020. |
|
Merging per discussion on tonight's call. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is based on @jyasskin and @dbaron's comments in #48. I'm hoping we'll be able to close that issue once the text reflects a shared understanding of the nuance here.