W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Recording teleconferences?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:40:13 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908151540i455e5738jc484d99c9b3acff8@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM, John Foliot<jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>>
>> The same way that, since the beginning of this working group, the
>> working
>> group has ensured that _I_ can participate in this initiative -- by
>> having
>> minutes that transcribe the meeting.
>>
>> If the minutes aren't good enough, why weren't you complaining about
>> this
>> last week _before_ Anne offered to make audio alternatives available?
>
> Because you and I have had access to equally good or bad minutes each
> week.

That's the sort of thing that sounds like "we shouldn't do audio at
all if we can't offer transcriptions".

> Anne wants to enhance their usefulness and quality by including an audio
> track to capture content that is currently not being captured in the
> scribed minutes (suggesting that the minutes alone are not complete
> enough).  That's great, but while doing so, continue to ensure that
> *everyone* receives the additional benefit derived from this additional
> input.

Sure, it would be best to do so.  But whether we do so or not has *no
relevance* to whether we record and publish audio of the meetings as
well.  It's a completely separate question.

> To improve things for you and I, but not for others (such as Vicki) is
> inequitable, unfair, and in contradiction of WCAG guidance for web content
> (Anne *is* talking of posting the audio on the web), and W3C policy for
> using 'media' as a means of capturing official business (per Dan C.). On a
> human level, it is also rude, and given how easy it is to remedy, I am at
> a loss as to why this is such a huge burden for this working group.

Nobody's saying this is a huge burden, or that we shouldn't offer
transcriptions of the audio.  Those who are pushing back against you
are pushing against the idea implicit in some of what you and others
are saying that seems to suggest that whether or not transcriptions
are provided has any relevance on whether or not we should record
audio at all.

> Seeing as I personally offered to pay the first go-round to kick things
> off, you would think that in a healthy environment, someone would say,
> "Sounds great! Go for it!"
>
> I'm just sayin'...

Indeed, it does sound great.  Go for it!

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:41:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT