W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [html4all] On HTML WG process - was [Re: Request for review of alt and alt value for authoring or publishing tools]

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:01:54 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0804161101l3094564bjd0e66a2a421b513e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Steve Faulkner" <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "Joshue O Connor" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>

Hi Dan,

>> As an individual, I do think that the HTML5 WG actually seeking advice
>> from PFWG, as well as the WAI offering advice on a regular on-going
>> basis would be most beneficial to process improvement.

> Perhaps you could be more specific about how that would be
> different from what is currently happening?

Thanks for asking. There are probably a lot of ways the process could
be improved. I've included Steve and Josh in this message in case they
have ideas and want to help brainstorm.

But from my perspective the main difference is between being proactive
instead of being reactive.

For one example, the editor could ask ahead of time for PFWG advice
when needed. Collaborate with the experts in advance. Listen to them.
Asking for advice is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength.
Taking the initiative by acting rather than reacting to events would
be beneficial.

Also refraining from intentionally inciting a flame war [1] would be
helpful. When an issue isn't resolved but 'closed', progress will be
held up or otherwise be in difficulty.

As long as people refuse to make the effort to understand someone
else's thoughts and viewpoints, conflict and anger are the result. Too
many people have shut off their hearts and minds from the possibility
of hearing something that might actually change their mind. When
people are unwilling to even consider an alternative point of view,
the only inevitable outcome is deadlock and stagnation. It takes
honesty to have a real debate, and without that, what you've got is
just egos and agendas that will do anything to be 'right'.

>  The relevant people seem to be involved in the discussion;
>  for example, Al Gilman's message of Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:05:41 -0400
>  makes it clear that he's following much of the discussion.

I am very glad Al is involved in the discussion. Thank you, Al you are needed.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20080411#l-17
> <Hixie> ok i must not bid you all farewell
> <Hixie> for i am about to be roasted on a spit by the accessibility crowd
> <Hixie> er, must now
> * annevk looks at web-apps-tracker
> Hixie> (i closed the alt text issue, issue-31)

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> Please let's keep process discussion off public-html...
>
>  On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 07:05 -0500, Laura Carlson wrote:
>  [...]
>
> > As an individual, I do think that the HTML5 WG actually seeking advice
>  > from PFWG, as well as the WAI offering advice on a regular on-going
>  > basis would be most beneficial to process improvement.
>
>  Perhaps you could be more specific about how that would be
>  different from what is currently happening?
>
>  The relevant people seem to be involved in the discussion;
>  for example, Al Gilman's message of Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:05:41 -0400
>  makes it clear that he's following much of the discussion.
>
>  --
>  Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 13:01:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:14 GMT