diff --git a/meetings/2023-07-05-minites.md b/meetings/2023-07-05-minites.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..fe305c75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meetings/2023-07-05-minites.md
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# TAG Privacy TF - Wed, 5 July 2023
+
+Present: Dan, Jeffrey, Don, Nick, Christine, Amy
+Regrets: Robin, Pete
+
+## https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/290
+
+Don: I think I addressed all of robin's comments .. should match up.
+
+Nick: looks more in line...
+
+Jeffrey: looks good. 
+
+Dan: I'm good.
+
+**agree to merge**
+
+## https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/322
+
+Nick: not sure if it's "just as much" - i think it is "also"
+
+Don: users are not aware of corporate M&A news... Expecting people to read techcrunch to understand how their personal data is used..  is not reasonable.
+
+Amy: that was in the original thing.
+
+Nick: I think the re-ordering seems good.
+
+Don: I'll make a note that we cover contexts and not companies or parties...
+
+**noting robin approval**
+
+**agree to commit suggestions and merge**
+
+## https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/323
+
+*need review*
+
+## https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/324
+
+**noting robin approval**
+
+Amy: changed a principle to explanatory text - "seek to understand" - 
+
+Nick: I think the reason we had it separate was that we wanted to affirmatively say "you shouldn't seek this out" - not just do something in alignment with goals... Problem we're coming up against here... everyone has their own view - we can say "yes you can go ask them". 
+
+Amy: worthsmithed ... sentennce to try to address.  
+
+Dan: If it can be colapsed into one principle then it could be a good thing at this point for simplicity.
+
+Jeffrey: removes some text that pete liked so don't want to merge without Pete's eyes on it. Immediate goals... I want Pete to have the chance to look over it. 
+
+Amy: will do another edit pass.
+
+Nick: I'm ok with it...
+
+*candidate for async merger based on reviews*
+
+## https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/328
+
+Nick: I think it's good consolodate... I think we should still have separate defintiions... 
+
+Jeffrey: if we say abuse the folks who handle abuse of servers - may think it applies to them.
+
+Amy: would a definition help?
+
+Jeffrey: probably - people need to see it. We could title it "abuse of users"
+
+Don: I like that. Abuse is overloaded.
+
+Amy: I've thought of editing the titles to be more actionable.
+
+Dan: totally agree with making things more actionable.
+
+Amy: "protecting users"...
+
+## https://github.com/w3ctag/privacy-principles/pull/326
+
+Amy: merge these sections maybe?  Sensitive info didn't have a principle.  I created one.  Seems an important principle - we come across it when doing TAG reviews as well... "actors should know that..."
+
+NicK; if inn many reviews we're going to point this out... then it can be cited. Not sure if that makes it a principle...
+
+Amy: because of this principle don't do this...
+
+Jeeffrey: don't design features assuming that particular info is not sensitive
+
+Amy: assuming some info is sensitive / not sensitive...
+
+Don: you can't say in advance what data points are going to be picked up on as sensitive by  downstream actors
+
+Nick: still not sure if this needs to be a principle.  
+
+Amy: feel strongly this should be a principle...
+
+