RE: Call For Consensus

Hi Lisa,

I’ll have to engage in further discussion to find out when ETS can make meaningful comments beyond what I can personally provide by reviewing the material. I am confident that there will be comments and that they are likely to be substantive in nature. In addition, I’m making an in principle objection to any attempt to limit future changes to this or to any aspect of the specification before it proceeds to CR. I cannot support such a CfC, but I can support publication of drafts, or requests to include proposed material in drafts for review. The language in this CfC which sets an expectation of limiting further changes is what I “can’t live with”, to use the common phrase.

I think this work merits wider review, possibly also experimental implementation and evaluation with end users, but it’s inappropriate to limit the making of backward-incompatible changes – especially in light of the fact that there has been very little experience so far with the application of the technology to a wide variety of Web content or with users with disabilities. As a matter of process, this Task Force needs to be free to make design changes, as needed, in response to comments from participants or from other parties.

Candidate Recommendation is the only point in the process at which there is a call for implementations, accompanied by an expectation of stability. Earlier implementations are carried out on the understanding that changes may be made to the specification as appropriate.

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 1:22 PM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>; public-personalization-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: Call For Consensus

Hi Jason

How much additional time will you and your colleges need to review these items?

we have had two questionnaires addressing them and addressed all the issues that have been brought up:

action, field, destination<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F101569%2Factionfielddestination%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C2f6cc403edf343d14d1c08d552d6ef8e%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636506005454702058&sdata=yqn%2FzssZlFGYm6kS8a%2BZIbr7bLj18DfldHHB5Ef0VuU%3D&reserved=0>: open from 29 October 2017 to 10 November 2017

new values for module 1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F101569%2Fnewvaluesmodule1%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C2f6cc403edf343d14d1c08d552d6ef8e%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636506005454702058&sdata=YXUA25TV0gGCLe8Ny8RJ01fruADuz9C7euftKLHSLBY%3D&reserved=0>: open from 03 December 2017 to 05 December 2017


All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fil.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Flisaseeman%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C2f6cc403edf343d14d1c08d552d6ef8e%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636506005454702058&sdata=yBLWLM8nJzGO0PvOpb6mSPybRgtwPtZ69ExwGVQAqd8%3D&reserved=0>, Twitter<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSeemanLisa&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C2f6cc403edf343d14d1c08d552d6ef8e%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636506005454702058&sdata=Gt4Q9EJCLupHP5licTuXWtsXTjSQjIUyS7xO9c4OrmA%3D&reserved=0>



---- On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:45:52 +0200 White<jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote ----
In addition to the concerns already raised, I do not expect my colleagues and I to have ample opportunity to review this work, or to comment in full, at least until the publication of the next working draft. I think my concerns stand, and it’s unequivocally a -1 to the CfC.

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 11:50 AM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>>; public-personalization-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Call For Consensus

Hi Jason

Note that  the cfc seas changes may happen that affect implementation if a strong need is identified. (Such as from implementation feedback)
I think that addresses your concern

We discussed this on the last call. We did the same thing with ARIA to get firefox to be an early adopter.
Getting adoption of these three values are important because we need it to become a standard, and for WCAG to require it. If we do not meet the needs of implementations we can not become a standard .

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fil.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Flisaseeman%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C2e9cf53cf6c34efe899208d552ca2706%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636505950553846195&sdata=Um7SIrJmAvzovN9dKTuyuCyC9kFD9TUZYYUkOmVfqrc%3D&reserved=0>, Twitter<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSeemanLisa&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C2e9cf53cf6c34efe899208d552ca2706%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636505950553846195&sdata=AR1nrPz2L4DA43yJJc2rvT3O%2FtlRzmQEXifeMNsdp2I%3D&reserved=0>




---- On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:25:53 +0200 White<jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote ----
-1
A decision to preclude changes affecting implementations would prevent this Task Force from properly considering and responding to comments received on working drafts of the specification. The only point in the process at which it is appropriate to signal that backward-incompatible changes are not expected is the transition to Candidate Recommendation. The experience gained from early implementations is no doubt valuable in guiding further development, but this experience may well lead to decisions that substantively change the formal vocabulary defined in the specification. The text of the CfC raises the bar too high for making changes.

This CfC seeks improperly to restrain the Task Force from further developing the specification in response to comments received from participants, from external parties and from prospective implementers.

I would support a CfC that simply sought agreement to publish a working draft or to include items that have been discussed at meetings in the next draft.

From: Charles LaPierre [mailto:charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 10:32 AM
To: public-personalization-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Call For Consensus

Hello Personalization TF members and Happy New Year!

We have a Call For Consensus which ends Monday Jan 8th at 11 am Boston time.

 This task force does not intend to make changes to the the action field and destination vocabularies in https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fpersonalization-semantics%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cbac99be2322643fc7e1608d552bf28af%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636505903330937920&sdata=WyoOlVqj3CiYy7q%2BoN7dqAvtIfrFS%2FNcBBiroFyZaR4%3D&reserved=0> that may affect implementation. Editorial changes may still occur.
Note that

  *   Changes may happen that affect implementation if a strong need is identified. (Such as from implementation feedback)
  *   We may also add advanced terms at some stage and a mechanism for adding options. Terms that may need options have been identified in the specification.

The changes from the previous draft  are: adding ccType , transactionCurrency, transactionAmount and checkout
The term organizationTitle has also been changed to position.
If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline. note we do have time to make a few changes and redo the CFC.
 You may vote by replying to this message with a +1 or if you have any concerns a -1 and what your concerns are.

All the best
Lisa and Charles

Thanks
EOM

Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre
Phone: 650-600-3301



________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________




________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________




________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________