W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: Process request on validity

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:37:50 +0100
To: <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511060431796.SM00688@Inbox>

This time I agree with Matt.
----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Matt May"<mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
    Inviato: 06/11/05 4.42.00
    A: "WAI WCAG List"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Process request on validity
    
    
    The current debate over validity is the definition of a religious  
    war. We have one faction which expresses a strong objection to  
    validity as a Level 1 requirement; and one faction which expresses a  
    strong objection to anything else. The debate has caused the  
    participants on both sides to become more deeply entrenched in their  
    own positions, rather than trying to find middle ground. If this is  
    the case, the discussion has gone as far as it will go, and so we  
    don't waste time going over this until the end of time, we should  
    follow the process that is laid out for us.
    
    The W3C Process Document states[1]:
    
    "In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of  
    view, a group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair  
    MAY record a decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least  
    one Formal Objection) so that the group may make progress (for  
    example, to produce a deliverable in a timely manner). Dissenters  
    cannot stop a group's work simply by saying that they cannot live  
    with a decision. When the Chair believes that the Group has duly  
    considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is  
    possible and reasonable, the group SHOULD move on."
    
    I think that it is clear by now that all points of view have been  
    carefully considered over the last five or so years I've been a part  
    of the WG. I encourage the chair to continue to pursue compromise  
    positions, as he has done, in an attempt to maintain WCAG 2 as a  
    consensus document. However, if and when it becomes clear that a  
    consensus position is not achievable, we should move on as soon as  
    possible, because there is too much work left to do, and this point  
    has derailed us too many times.
    
    I would then ask chair to call for a vote on the level at which HTML  
    validity is placed, note that dissent exists among the participants,  
    and instruct dissenting parties to file a Formal Objection[2]  
    consistent with the rules set forth in the W3C Process Document. The  
    Formal Objection must be noted in the document, and must be reviewed  
    by the W3C Director at the next time the WG requests to advance the  
    document (i.e., to Last Call WD). Once the Director makes a decision  
    on this point, the matter is considered to be settled, and future  
    debate on the topic will be allowed only at the chair's discretion.
    
    -
    m
    
    [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#managing- 
    dissent
    [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/ 
    policies.html#FormalObjection
    
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 09:34:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT