Update Scoringmodel.md
This commit is contained in:
rodič
b709beaeb0
revize
f4c1988beb
|
@ -176,11 +176,14 @@ I asked experts behind privacy-services or contributors to the privacy-centric c
|
|||
_Sketches what could be put inside privacy-solutions scoring model_ (note: think of these as questions to experts for a workshop on scoring ideation).
|
||||
|
||||
**Key observations**
|
||||
- Privacy experts have a broad range of different takes on privacy assessment (50+ min different examples)
|
||||
- Majority of the expert takes are hard to execute by non-tech people (they need info-help!)
|
||||
- Privacy assessment takes enormous time (potential for analytical service!)
|
||||
- The scoring model demand both "decentralisation", "open-source" & "privacy" topics understanding (privacy literacy isn't enough)
|
||||
- Scoring criteria are different from objective (example: transaction traceability) & subjective (example: backed by a16z crypto) takes
|
||||
|
||||
| Topic | Observation |
|
||||
| ------------- | ------------- |
|
||||
| Broad range of different takes on privacy assesment | Privacy experts have around 50+ tips |
|
||||
| Tech-centricity of assesment | Majority of the expert takes are hard to execute by non-tech people (they need info-help!) |
|
||||
| Privacy assessment takes enormous time | Time-To privacy-fit - potential for analytical service |
|
||||
| Privacy literacy isn't enough | The scoring model demand both "decentralisation", "open-source" & "privacy" topics understanding |
|
||||
| Mix of objective & subjective takes | Scoring criteria are different from objective (example: transaction traceability) & subjective (example: backed by a16z crypto) takes |
|
||||
|
||||
**Open-source transparency**
|
||||
- **GitHub repos**: # of commits, # stars, date of repo creation.
|
||||
|
|
Načítá se…
Odkázat v novém úkolu