W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2010

RE: disposition of ISSUE 30 cited in bug 10967 insufficient

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:29:14 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: "'Gregory J. Rosmaita'" <oedipus@hicom.net>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "mike@w3.org" <mike@w3.org>, "mjs@apple.com" <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F8184AC54D@TK5EX14MBXC136.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> The operating assumption should be that once a Change Proposal has been brought forward with this information that Paul too will weigh in, and once any and all questions he raises have been addressed to his satisfaction that issue 30 will be reopened at that time.  

I believe the right process is for the proponents of re-opening ISSUE-30 should send an email to the Chairs with public-html@w3.org in the CC field requesting this action.  This email should clearly provide the "addition technical information" as per [1] that the Chairs should consider in their decision.

I also agree with Sam and Maciej that advocates of re-considering the ISSUE-30 decision should be very careful to get all their arguments in place BEFORE requesting the issue be re-opened.  I therefore agree with Janina that there is no rush to make this request.

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#WGChairReopen 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 6:16 AM
To: John Foliot
Cc: 'Gregory J. Rosmaita'; public-html-a11y@w3.org; Paul Cotton; janina@rednote.net; mike@w3.org; mjs@apple.com
Subject: Re: disposition of ISSUE 30 cited in bug 10967 insufficient

On 11/30/2010 10:58 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>
> * Given the known history to date, Re-open Issue 30 (@longdesc) and 
> request the further data that has been referenced in this and other 
> current threads be brought forward (although much of it is readily 
> available now at a private URL hosted by Laura Carlson (given that the 
> W3C Wiki page was locked down due to contention)

While neither of us were required to do so, both Maciej and I have indicated that we believe that the information gathered so far seems reasonable to present to the WG now, should the parties collecting it deem it appropriate to do so.  I further support Maciej's point that the decision to reopen is not something that will itself be subject to discussion.

The operating assumption should be that once a Change Proposal has been brought forward with this information that Paul too will weigh in, and once any and all questions he raises have been addressed to his satisfaction that issue 30 will be reopened at that time.  Frankly, I don't expect this to be a problem.

There is no reason that that change proposal can't be hosted on the W3C Wiki page.  The original wiki page purported to capture all points of view, and that proved to be unworkable (no, I am not pointing fingers or taking sides).  The solution proposed was to have separate wiki pages to capture each point of view and to have the original page link to both. 
Any choice that Laura made to go further and take the page private was her own (and, again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that choice).

I also support Janina's point that there is no urgency to act now on longdesc, particularly when there are other items with real deadlines that need attention.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:29:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:27 GMT