W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Participation in good standing

From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:11:45 +1100
Message-ID: <3FDBC6E1.1000002@acslink.net.au>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Cc: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Joe Clark wrote:

> 
> I want WAI (read well: WAI) to be very, very clear about what it truly
> means here:
> 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0556.html>
> 
>>Work statement [1]: focused mainly on membership requirements for our task
>>force. People need to be members in good standing of the larger WCAG group
>>but can focus their time commitment to techniques, or split their time.
> 
> 
> The membership requirements seem to have been unilaterally upgraded
> overnight to read as follows:
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/12/wttf.html>
> Participation
> 
>    Task Force participants must be participants in good standing of
>    the WCAG WG, should have experience with a Web technology (such as
>    HTML, CSS, or SVG), and must actively contribute to the work of the
>    Task Force, including:
>      * minimum 2 hours per week of Task Force work
>      * remain current on the mailing list and respond in a timely manner
>        to postings on mailing list
>      * participate in Task Force telephone meetings, or send regrets to
>        the list
>      * assist in preparing Task Force deliverables for discussion
> 
> Essentially, even to work on HTML techniques now requires one to be PiGS
> (participant in good standing).
> 
> 1. That was not the case before.
> 2. Is that really and truly what the World Wide Web Consortium wishes to
> insist on now?
> 
> Answer question 2 very carefully indeed. The Web Accessibility Initiative
> stands to permanently alienate contributors if it actually puts the
> proposal into practice. Perhaps I should add a third question:
> 
> 3. Is that the result WAI actually intends?
> 
> Public responses, to the list, *only*, please.
> 
> --
> 
>   Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
>   Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
>   <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
> 

I don't mind the way that WAI-GL operates with the listing of 
participants. It allows people like me, who can only offer miminal 
contribution, still an avenue to do so, and to also change status 
easily, if we come into position to be able to do so (time, notice most 
of this Sunday has been taken with WAI issues (see wai-xtech), but 
that's my choice).

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/participants.html

I just do not have the time to allocate a high involvement, so the way 
that WAI-GL has operated I think is pretty fair, but I don't feel the 
same for other WGs.

Take for instance the AUWG Charter requires 3-6 hours a week, etc.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/charter4

I can't get on this list even though I am trying to make a contribution, 
yet I know others on this list I sincerely doubt are fulfilling anywhere 
near these requirements.  I'm not trying to make an issue, just a point.

As an independant developer, I would have to pay the cost of so many 
international phone calls to participate.  I don't mind the WAI-GL 
participants structure, but if it becomes more and more difficult to 
contribute then I can probably better invest my energies elsewhere, and 
you'll tend to find those of us, who are independant developers, who 
have a unique perspective on these issues, will just drop away.

Geoff Deering
Received on Saturday, 13 December 2003 21:23:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT