W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: Minutes from 02 August 2001 telecon

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:02:16 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002a01c11d0f$993b4d80$066fa8c0@750>
My comment was simply that a public release of a document should reflect
the work of the committee.

If there is serious concern about wording of a particular item -- it
should remain in the group and be discussed there.  It should not be
released to the public as the work of the committee when there are that
may core members of the committee that disagree with it.

Now I think it would be great for us to have something resolved by TR
time.  But we should not release a doc if it does not reflect the
working group.

If we want to, we could put in a paragraph in lieu of a checkpoint or
guideline that would state the different points of view and invite
comment.  But I don’t believe we should have an item included as a
proposed recommendation draft which we release to the public where there
is serious objection from the working group.

I will check on procedure on this topic to be sure.


In the meantime - lets see if we can get to consensus on 3.4 wording so
we an include this important topic.

Gregg



-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:18 AM
To: Wendy A Chisholm
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Minutes from 02 August 2001 telecon

I strongly support producing a public draft as soon as possible.

I am strongly opposed to removing stuff that is controversial from any
draft
that is for public review. Otherwise we don't get review on any of the
areas
where we could clearly use any outstanding insights that come from the
broader public.

Clearly we should be clear that this is a draft, and when people make
misinformed statements about what we are about to do we should then
point
them to where it says as clearly and simply as possible "this is a
draft, is
likely to be changed, does not necessarily represent any consensus, has
not
been approved by the W3C or its members, and is for review by intersted
parties who are invited to submit comments to the group". Maybe if a few
people get opinters like this they will actually read the bit that says
it
next time.

Besides, I don't think there are pieces that are controversial, I think
the
current balance is wrong and removing pieces would exacerbate the
problem. I
realise we are not going gto get it right in a draft (otherwise it would
be a
lsat call) but as mentioned above that is not a reason to leave out the
'hard
bits' - this is so people can see what progress we a re making, and
therefore
where we are not going so well, in a way they can assess for themselves.

cheers

Charles

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  Latest draft
  WC Today, walk change log again. Want to have some discussion about
other
  checkpoints, particularly if we want to try to release something next
week.
  GV Not sure we can release next week. Concerned since so many changes.
  JW We really need to get something published. We need to at least
release
  what we've done.
  GV Perhaps then go through and take controversial stuff out and
release the
  rest.
  WC A reason for releasing a draft is for wider review. We can release
the
  draft that says "this is controversial. here are the points." We've
had
  creative discussion on this checkpoint and think we can put in
something
  that can be ok.
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 14:08:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT