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 15:58:58 -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: <20150408195857.GC17970@opera.rednote.net>
Hi Again, Steve:

Steven Faulkner writes:
> Hi Janina, as regards the use if WAI liaison list. it is certainly within the power of the PF to stop using the list for spec review comments. So an unclear as to your repeated assertions of it being out of PF control.
> 
Please note that on https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/ it says
"Records of what we have said to other groups are to be found in the
wai-liaison@w3.org <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/wai-liaison/>
list".


BTW, this practice predates my decade plus participation in PF. 

Your observation that responses to our comments end up in wai-liaison,
because people use "reply to all" when they respond, makes it seem it's
a discussion list is indeed accurate, and not the best archiving
practice. We will revisit how to maintain a cleaner archive of our
formal comments and dispositive responses.

However, please note wai-liaison is NOT PF's spec review discussion
list. We only cc to that list when we've rechaed agreement on a comment
that we're forwarding to another W3C group.

> As to the survey I was making a suggestion in response to your statement 
> "it's reasonable to ask us to reconsider, and we will do that as a group."
> 
> By "group" I assumed you meant PF.
> 
Yes, of course. I'm also pointing out, however, that the subset of PF
doing the work has more weight for its views, commenserate with the WG's
Charter. This is a reason why a WBS may not be the best vehicle in some
cases.

> As to process around publication it is my (perhaps naive) understanding that W3C staff serve the membership and as consensus is a pillar of the W3C process I would expect that subverting consensus is anathema to policy.

Consensus is clearly very important. However, even a WG consensus can be
overruled by the Director as the result of a Formal Objection. I believe
exactly that outcome was the desired result of those who backed the FO
against HTML longDesc.


There are other constraints spelled out in W3C policy.

Nor is any consensus immutable. New information, or a new review can
undo a consensus previously evident. Participants are free to change
their minds.

\
hth

Janina


> 
> > On 8 Apr 2015, at 16:31, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Steven Faulkner writes:
> >> Hi Janina, thanks for the feedback.
> >> responses inline
> >> 
> >> --
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> 
> >> SteveF
> >> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >> 
> >>> On 8 April 2015 at 15:49, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 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.
> >> 
> >> Regardless of whether it is officially owned by PF its sole traffic appears
> >> to be PF tech review related. So suggest moving this traffic to a public
> >> list.
> > You're barking up the wrong tree when you ask for changes in this list.
> > PF has no authority to do anything with the 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.
> >> 
> >> As you say this is a time to revisit, I suggest a pf group w3c survey be a
> >> good method to gauge current opinion.
> > Perhaps a WBS, but the questions would need to include how often the
> > responder has participated in the Wednesday telecons.
> > 
> > PF has some 11 telecons weekly. No one in PF participates in all 11
> > calls. Yet, all 11 are doing pretty good work, imo. I frankly hesitate
> > to ask all of PF to micro-manage any one of those 11 subteams.
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 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.
> >> 
> >> good to hear.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 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.
> >> 
> >> Concrete action: W3C staff as a policy should not attempt to override
> >> member consensus decisions.
> > I'm still confused. Are you suggesting that transition requests, which
> > currently require Domain Lead sign-off, be dropped? If so, you're again
> > barking up the wrong tree. That would a W3C policy change you should
> > take up with the AC and even the AB.
> > 
> > Janina
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 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/
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 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/
> > 

-- 

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 19:59:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 April 2015 19:59:30 UTC