Revise the description of how to file issues after a privacy review.

[jyasskin]

• The "Presenting your review" section also covered how to file issues, so I merged that text into the subsequent sections.
• Since issues are individual, reviewers might not always be able to file an issue that came up in PING discussion. In that case, I said they should delegate.
• I suggested linking to minutes, if possible, so that the WG can tell what positions had PING consensus.
• I explained how unresolved issues can lead to formal objections, and who's responsible to file those objections.

@yoavweiss @cwilso, does this look like a good set of guidelines to fill the link from https://w3cping.github.io/administrivia/2023/charter.html#horizontal-review?

[yoavweiss]

This seems to clarify things, but it's still not clear to me what the PING consensus means:

• If there's an issue filed by an individual that the PING doesn't have consensus on, the Member the individual represents can still formally object to the spec advancing, causing significant overhead to the WG.
• If there's an issue filed with PING consensus, the WG can still ignore it and it's on individual Members to object. (causing significant overhead to said Members)
• This whole thing assumes that individuals can file FOs, which invited experts cannot (AFAICT).

So... it all feels a bit messy.

[jyasskin]

PING consensus doesn't have any formal weight, but I think it indicates 2 things:

1. There are lots of member companies represented in the PING, so ignoring PING consensus risks lots of FOs, not just the one (or zero) from the individual filing the issue.
2. The FO counsel is likely to weigh PING consensus higher than a privacy issue that the PING as a whole doesn't agree with, and so be more likely to uphold the objection. One might even be able to convince the staff and counsel to take the short circuit for a non-consensus objection.