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

RE: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:33:07 +0000
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
CC: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F81870EC68@TK5EX14MBXC134.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I have responded to this item.  See:


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

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Laura Carlson
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:31 PM
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Cc: Janina Sajka; Judy Brewer
Subject: Fwd: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG

For your information:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:27:00 -0800
Subject: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org


What criteria will be used to determine the "newness" of information when considering reopening issues in the HTML WG? Allowing the elaboration of information that, in truncated form, was available to the working group at the time the original decision was made doesn't strike me as a high enough bar.

In many cases, when the working group's escalation and decision process has been fully exercised and a decision rendered, the issue in question was contentious and divisive. If it isn't clear to the working group that substantive new information is available *that would have caused some participants to see things differently when the issue was first decided*, I think the presumption should be that such issues don't get reopened.

I'd like to see something like Sam's "three or more independent and established participants" rule for reopening issues due to new information. If we can't find three or more independent and established participants who can say "I would have gone the other way on this issue, had I known then what I know now," we shouldn't reopen the issue.

Thanks for your consideration,

Edward O'Connor

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 20:33:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:18 UTC