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

Re: Minutes from 02 August 2001 telecon

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 13:55:53 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010806135020.009f0ba0@localhost>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I believe the way that we should move forward is the way that we agreed 
upon in the telecon last Thursday.  I discussed our proposals with Judy 
last Friday and she said that it was an appropriate way to move forward.

Part of the issue, is that I published a draft with wording that had not 
gained full support from the working group.  This was my mistake.  I was 
anxious to publish a working draft that would improve on the proposal being 
discussed in the mailing list.  I should have sent a proposal to the 
mailing list first, before including something in a draft.

Therefore, in this instance, removing something that was in there is in 
part due to my actions and not those of the working group.

There are many other contentious items that will remain in the working 
draft.  They will be accompanied with notes.  3.4 is a special instance due 
to my actions.

--wendy

At 05:18 AM 8/4/01 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>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.

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 13:44:05 GMT

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