W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Suggestions for opening up PF

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:49:50 -0400
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Mike Paciello <mpaciello@paciellogroup.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150408144950.GK17160@opera.rednote.net>
Steve:

Thanks for your list of suggested improvements to PF's process.


I believe all points you raise have been previously considered. They
stand as they are because of previous group decisions. Clearly, we might
have a different view now. So, it's reasonable to ask us to reconsider,
and we will do that as a group.

A few comments on particulars in line below ...


Steven Faulkner writes:
> Hi all,
> 
> I know some of these have been raised and are 'in process', but the process
> appears to be moving slowly.
> 
> The following are some suggestions that I think would provide easier
> collaboration between the PF and other working groups and contributors at
> the W3C. Note: these suggestions are personal and are not intended to
> represent the views of my employer
> 
> Public-PF mailing list [1]: allow non PF members to post to the list. We
> have had situations in the past where members of the TAG (and other working
> groups) have been unable to respond to technical discussion occuring on the
> public PF list. This has lead to loss of technical input on important
> accessibility related developments.
> 
> PF issue tracker [2]: Allow anyone to read the issue tracker  if the work
> of the group occurs in public space there is no need to have the issue
> tracker in member only space. Anybody that is not a member of the PF who
> wants to follow a particular issue cannot currently, this is an impedement
> to collaboration and development.
> 
> Recommend the primary method of public & inter WG comment be via bugs filed
> on the various sepcifications, this makes tracking and responding to
> technical issues raised easier for the people doing the technical work.
> 
> WAI-liason list [3]: This list appears to consist primarliy of responses to
> PF  comments on other WG specifications (which reside in the public space),
> yet this list is in member only space, it does not make sense.
This is not a PF list.

> 
> PF meeting minutes: remove the unecessary step of scrubbing the minutes and
> only making them public after a preiod of time, it is in general a waste of
> WG member and W3C staff time. If on the rare occasion the meetings cotain
> sensitive information ask those at the meeting if they request an
> opportunity to scrub prior to release.
Whether or not the additional step is necessary is, of course, a matter
of opinion. Let me point out that it was strongly requested by the
participants of that teleconference when our charter was last reviewed
because they felt it was an important safeguard.

> 
> Move all specs produced by PF to the 2014 process [4]
> 
> Take advantage of the new W3C publishing tools [5] that are being made
> avialable, these tools can vastly reduce the amound of time spec editors
> and w3c staff have to spend in producing working drafts.
Already under consideration. See the pf-editor minutes.

> 
> De-politicise the publication process, I have experienced on a number of
> occasions, the situation where specs i work on have been held up due to
> backroom wrangling even though there has been clear public member consensus
> to publish. Heartbeat publications in particular should be as painless and
> beurocracy free as possible, this will free up time for all involved.
I must confess I don't understand this point,and I don't see it as
actionable as currently presented. To my mind "political wrangling" is
what we do when there are disagreements. The W3C is a polity, after all.

Janina

> 
> I am a PF member but largely work outside of the PF space because other
> working groups allow me to get on with the technical work without undue
> constraints.
> 
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/
> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/wai-liaison/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/
> [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2015JanMar/0026.html
> --
> 
> Regards
> 
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 14:50:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 April 2015 14:50:41 UTC