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

Re: Accessibility Task Force

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:28:18 -0400
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20090911132818.GQ3524@sonata.rednote.net>
Sam Ruby writes:
> Janina Sajka wrote:
>> I would have no problem changing "commit" to "propose" as you suggest
>> below. I expect PF would not object to that. PF certainly does not intend to assert
>> authority to edit any other Wg's documents. While the intent of a joint
>> TF is to develop mutually satisfactory solutions, it is still the
>> exclusive responsibility of each Wg to agree on and effect its own edits.
>
> That works for me.
>
> I believe that what exists in the proposal is based on input I provided  
> prior to the two new co-chairs coming on board.  My concern was (and is)  
> that the worst case scenario is one where one side (not participating in  
> the TF) simply says "no", and the other side (participating in the task  
> force) simply says "because I said so".
>
> My input was that the TF needs to have at least one person who is ready,  
> willing, and able to edit if necessary; even if the universal hope is  
> that such is never necessary.  It has been my experience (both  
> elsewhere, and so far in the history of this WG), that the existence of  
> such a person makes both sides more reasonable.

I agree with your strategic analysis.

But this person would be empowered to commit proposed spec language by virtue of being a member of the
HTML Wg, and not as a member of any joint TF.

Janina

>
>> Janina
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> Edward O'Connor writes:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm confused by some of the wording in the HTML/PF joint TF proposal:
>>>
>>>                 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force
>>>
>>> In the proposal, the TF's list of deliverables includes "committing spec
>>> edits of HTML." Yet it also states that the TF is to be advisory:
>>>
>>>> The Task Force does not, however, represent consensus[...] All output
>>>> of the Task Force should be considered as proposals, subject to
>>>> vetting and modification by the WG receiving the proposal.
>>> This is point #6 of the outline Paul posted earlier:
>>>
>>>> 6. TF would not make final decisions which would be made by HTML
>>>> and/or PF WGs
>>> Given the advisory nature of the TF, I'm assuming "commiting spec edits
>>> of HTML" is supposed to mean something like "proposing spec edits to
>>> the HTML WG," but that's not how I originally read it, and perhaps
>>> others were confused by this too. Could this text be made more clear
>>> before it makes its way into the official TF charter?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ted
>>

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.202.595.7777;
		sip:janina@CapitalAccessibility.Com
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC	http://CapitalAccessibility.Com

Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada
Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 13:29:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT