W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

RE: Moving forward with Issue-204

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:52:57 -0700
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Frank Olivier'" <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <033001cd4586$67a5dd70$36f19850$@ca>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> > So, since PF cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user
> agents
> > vis a vis Issue-204, can AllowAriaReferHidden accept "may" or "might"
> > language vis a vis user agents?
> 
>  From the W3C Process[1]: "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply
> by saying that they cannot live with a decision"
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-
> dissent

>From that same document:

3.3.2 Recording and Reporting Formal Objections

In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to a
decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the reviewer
requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the related
decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance a technical report).
Note: In this document, the term "Formal Objection" is used to emphasize
this process implication: Formal Objections receive Director consideration.
The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English connotations.

An individual who registers a Formal Objection SHOULD cite technical
arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection; these
proposals MAY be vague or incomplete. Formal Objections that do not provide
substantive arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious
consideration by the Director.

A record of each Formal Objection MUST be publicly available. A Call for
Review (of a document) to the Advisory Committee MUST identify any Formal
Objections.

(http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews)


*************

If the goal of the Chairs is to set a record for how many Formal Objections
they can rack up in Last Call, then responses such as yours are quite useful
in that regard. 

When the PFWG (chartered to ensure W3C technologies meet accessibility
requirements - http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter201006) comes back to a
working group with a significant concern, and the Chairs dismiss that
concern as "dissent" out of hand, then I think we have a fairly serious
process problem on our hands. It was my belief that the role of the Chairs
was to foster consensus, and NOT attempt to drive a wedge between various
working group members. I encourage the Chairs to read the substance of the
response, and not focus on the words used to convey that message.

JF
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 14:53:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 June 2012 14:53:55 GMT