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

RE: Suggestions for opening up PF

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:25:55 -0700
To: "'Alex Russell'" <slightlyoff@google.com>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, "'www-archive'" <www-archive@w3.org>, "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, <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>, <plh@w3.org>, "'Janina Sajka'" <janina@rednote.net>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "'Mike Paciello'" <mpaciello@paciellogroup.com>, "'Robin Berjon'" <robin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018801d07253$5dfd7c90$19f875b0$@ca>
Like Steve, these are my personal thoughts, and do not reflect the opinion of 
my employer at this time.

Alex Russell wrote:

> The only group that should be allowed to have a hidden
> tracker/list is, perhaps, the AB, and I question even
> that sometimes. Member-only space is a bug. In fact,
> new groups (to my mind) shouldn't be given the option
> of having member-only space systems except by application
> and an explicit exemption.

Steve Faulkner wrote:

> 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 occurring on the public PF
> list. This has lead to loss of technical input on important
> accessibility related developments.


> PF meeting minutes: remove the unnecessary step of scrubbing the
> minutes and only making them public after a period of time, it
> is in general a waste of WG member and W3C staff time. If on the
> rare occasion the meetings contain sensitive information ask those
> at the meeting if they request an opportunity to scrub prior to release.

I too favor the removal of member-space classification of the work done by PF 
(APA). As a regular attendee of the Wednesday PF calls, in practice I've 
rarely heard any comments or issues that would be of such a sensitive nature 
that delaying the publication of the minutes a week to allow for "scrubbing" 
seems to be more of an impediment than a benefit. While we all (I think) can 
appreciate that the legal landscape around accessibility conformance is still 
complex (as I understand it, one of the reasons why PF is still in 
member-space), it has also been my experience that on the rare occasion when 
certain discussion points related to this type of sensitivity arise, there has 
been a request for "light minuting". (A reasonable request, and one that 
appears to have always been honored by participants present on the 

Perhaps, as part of the Charter, there could instead be a recognition that 
this WG can, when required, go "in-camera"[1] at the direction/discretion of 
the Chair, but under most circumstances there does not appear to be an 
over-arching need to have the entire meeting and minutes starting at that 
point, nor for that matter the mailing list. I'm not sure that discretionary 
confidentiality is a "bug", but I do think that transparency is superior to 
secrecy 99 times out of 100.

I support all of Steve's other suggestions as positive steps forward.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera

	"Generally, in-camera describes court cases, parts of it, or process where 
the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process... 
In-camera can also describe closed board meetings that cover information not 
recorded in the minutes or divulged to the public. Such sessions may discuss 
personnel, financial, or other sensitive decisions that must be kept secret 
(e.g., a proposed merger or strategic change the organization does not want 
disclosed to competitors)."
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:26:31 UTC