(this is following up on my comment made in the TAG design review previously)

w3ctag/design-reviews#342 (comment)

I want to suggest that the FPS proposal be moved to a different venue than PrivacyCG. The proposal (and the conversation around it) seems pretty far afield from most of whats discussed in FPS (how to reduce information flows, limit tracking, etc.).

I believe I understand the reasoning for FPS to be in PrivacyCG to be the following:

1. Browsers would like to move away from 3p cookies
2. We can't move way from 3p cookies until we have a way of easing / allowing certain kinds of cross site information flows
3. FPS might be one way of governing cross site information flows
4. Therefor FPS is a privacy feature

Setting side whether the above framing is shared by most browsers (my impression is that it is not), I do not think the above means PrivacyCG is the right place for this conversation.

Either:
a) FPS a generic way of sites describing their relationships with each other that doesn’t imply any particular privacy policy choices in a browser (and so isn’t a good fit for PrivacyCG, its a generic platform feature thats at least a couple hops away from standardizing privacy features in the browser), or
b) FPS is a system for sites to indicate that there should be weakened privacy boundaries between themselves (and so definitely doesn’t belong in PrivacyCG). This seems particularly privacy harming given that most browser vendors in this discussion have said explicitly they do not support using FPS for this purpose

Anyway, TL;DR; whether or not folks support FPS, i think PrivacyCG is not the best place for that discussion. I expect PrivacyCG would benefit by being able to focus on projects that are more immediately (and cross-browser) privacy improvement. And it seems possible that the FPS proponents would benefit from not butting heads with FPS opponents so frequently in this venue