W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2006

partial regrets

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:47:32 -0400
Message-Id: <200607051647.k65GlYmU022966@mail1.magma.ca>
To: "'WCAG-WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I will miss the first part of the meeting this week. Will join late... but
will have all surveys completed...

Cheers
David MacDonald

...access empowers people...
                   ...bariers disable them...
 
www.eramp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 4:56 AM
To: 'WCAG-WG'
Subject: Re: Minutes not usable


On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:57:42AM +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
 
> Of course there is nothing for me to gain by reading the minuets because
> text like
> "
> ... refer 532 back to editors
> ... accept 575 as amended
> ... 586 adopted as currently revised "
> 
> is unusable. 
I agree. However, under section 7.2 of the W3C Process Document
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/) the working group is required, at
this
stage, formally to address all comments received. Under section 3.3.3, the
working group should maintain a record of its decisions and the substantive
responses made to reviewers' comments.

Instead of reading meeting minutes, I plan to wait until the substantive
responses start coming out in order to keep track of how the document is
developing. Of course, I'll be paying particular attention to the
substantive
responses to issues that I raised, and I am sure that other Last Call
reviewers will be doing the same.

I am not denying that meeting minutes could be better kept, only suggesting
that they are not a substitute for the substantive responses that the
working
group will give, which should include technical rationale for each decision.
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2006 16:47:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT