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

Re: Accessibility Task Force

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:44:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4AAA542D.6020603@intertwingly.net>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
CC: 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>
Janina Sajka wrote:
> 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.

And given that the only effective barrier to entry to becoming a member 
of the HTML WG is agreeing to the patent policy, I don't see that as an 
issue.

> Janina

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 13:44:54 GMT

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