W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Task Force on 17 February at 16:00Z for 60 minutes

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:36:10 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=yx69hq9WD_mNFkhhADK7yoc5KnivyrHNZxqgu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

I wrote:

> What was unclear in the "Timeline to Last Call" is that, the phrase
> "Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration"
> actually meant that January 22, 2010  was the deadline for all other
> situations. Issue 30 didn't even have a bug so I did not consider that
> date pertained to Issue 30.
...
> If I had known January 22 was the deadline to submit a Proposal for
> Issue 30, I would certainly would have met it. But I didn't know that.

In trying to follow the Chairs' "Timeline to Last Call", I reminded
this task force numerous times that January 22 was the deadline for
escalating Pre-Last Call *BUGS*.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0220.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0160.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0066.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0003.html

Again, if I had known that January 22 was the deadline to submit a
Proposal for issue 30, I would have submitted a proposal for ISSUE 30.
I don't miss deadlines. I meet them.

I will honor the February 22 deadline and submit the proposal to
reopen ISSUE 30 on the 21st. I trust that the Chairs will take the
miscommunication conveyed in the "Timeline to Last Call" into
consideration.

Best Regards,
Laura

On 2/17/11, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> In September you advised me,
>
> "My recommendation: take your time.  Build your case.  Most of all, do
> not assume that you will get multiple opportunities to do this."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0493.html
>
> I took that to heart and have been trying to heed your advice.
>
> What was unclear in the "Timeline to Last Call" is that, the phrase
> "Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration"
> actually meant that January 22, 2010  was the deadline for all other
> situations. Issue 30 didn't even have a bug so I did not consider that
> date pertained to Issue 30.
>
> My focus was on:
>
> "Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal
> Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without
> prejudice and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a
> later version of HTML."
>
> If I had known January 22 was the deadline to submit a Proposal for
> Issue 30, I would certainly would have met it. But I didn't know that.
> I was taking my time.  Building my case.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 2/17/11, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 01:33 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to
>>>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate longdesc
>>>>> into the spec before Last Call.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough
>>>> information
>>>> to reopen the issue.  That being said it is my continued position[4][5]
>>>> that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues.
>>>
>>> Issue 30 was escalated February 6, 2008.
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30
>>
>> ... and closed 13 Aug 2010.
>>
>>> The request would be to reopen that previously escalated issue and
>>> resolve it before last call based on new information.
>>
>> If that request were to come in today, I would treat that as a request
>> to reopen the issue on 2011 Feb 17, and therefore as a Last Call issue.
>>
>>> Is that possible?
>>
>> In short, I would oppose such an issue from being treated as a pre-LC
>> issue.
>>
>> I'll be blunt.  What I am about to say is with my co-chair hat on, but
>> only representing 1 of 3 co-chairs:
>>
>> Laura: the work you are now doing is excellent.  To everybody who feels
>> that the decision was wrong or even hasty, I truly wish that even one of
>> you had presented even a fraction of what Laura has now gathered.  In
>> August of 2010, the discussion had been going on for 2.5 years.  Since
>> then yet another half a year has passed.  If you had come forward with
>> the type of data that Laura has now collected, you certainly would have
>> made my life easier.
>>
>> If we agree to reopen the issue (note: I said IF we chose to do so, even
>> though it does seem quite likely at this point) the chairs would
>> effectively be saying that there is a reasonable chance that this
>> proposal will draw weaker objections than the counter proposal that was
>> selected.
>>
>> But that is ALL that such an action would be saying.  We don't ask
>> people for objections to proposals or to rebut evidence which isn't even
>> brought forward.  If we do reopen this issue, it would be with the
>> intention that will give everybody adequate time to respond.
>>
>> Meanwhile, we are asking these same individuals to focus on the open
>> issues we need to resolve between now and last call:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/15
>>
>> I will also note that there already are a number of issues that we have
>> identified as last call issues:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/1
>>
>> I think it would be a good idea to explicitly mention the above list in
>> whatever announcements are made for last call.
>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Laura
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>> On 2/17/11, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>>>> On 02/17/2011 03:33 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>>>> Hi Janina,
>>>>>
>>>>> Regrets for the meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Issue-30 longdesc (any updates?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of us have been working on the change proposal [1]. Ideas for
>>>>> improvement on that and on the use cases [2] that require longdesc are
>>>>> still very welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> I plan to submit the proposal to the HTML working group soon. Per the
>>>>> Chairs' timeline [3], every issue needs to have at least one Change
>>>>> Proposal by February 23. So on February 22, I plan to submit the
>>>>> change proposal to reopen HTML-ISSUE-30.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to
>>>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate longdesc
>>>>> into the spec before Last Call.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough
>>>> information
>>>> to reopen the issue.  That being said it is my continued position[4][5]
>>>> that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues.
>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Laura
>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
>>>>> [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#uc
>>>>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0052.html
>>>> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 18 February 2011 21:36:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:31 GMT