Yay! Congratulations, Commish!! You’ll always be a Parkie in my eyes @mitchellsilver.bsky.social

I’m flying out of SFO very late Thurs on the red-eye? Not sure if you will be back in town by then

🔥🔥🔥 this is so amazing and spot on

I think it’s one of those evergreen challenges, how to ensure input is representative. The fundamental differences in the capacity and ability to participate that have to be accounted for in the design of these community input systems. (Aka why I like civic usability testing groups)

Re over-standardized - I agree with this. There are local and cultural contexts and considerations that ought to be part of tech governance - the question IMO is what are the pathways that can surface “community stds” (an imperfect phrase but intended to contrast with technical or compliance stds)

Yeah give DTPR a go! Would love feedback and thoughts. We’re going to be pushing out updated resources later in Dec so stay tuned for that.

What we see with the orgs in the US that we work with (who don’t have the layers of compliance UK orgs do) is that gathering info about the tech for this format is a way for them to get started with privacy processes so your comment about ATRS being possibly over specified got me thinking

so we’ve been doing this for a little while for privacy impact assessments with a visual language for urban tech called Digital Trust for Places and Routines and I’m interested in extending DTPR to AI registers.

Example from a UK project here bristol-siz.dtpr.guide/technologies...

could the amount of information required itself be a barrier to the execution here? asking as I’ve been thinking about how more people-centered design processes could be applied to AI registers to float up the things that people most want to know - taking a layered approach to providing notice

Oooo nice!!! Long overdue

wow what do you read when you *aren’t* sick??

👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻