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

RE: Suggestions for opening up PF

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:40:17 -0700
To: "'Alex Russell'" <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "'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: <028901d0730d$c69b25d0$53d17170$@ca>
Alex Russell  wrote:

> Discretionary confidentiality leads to over-protection for
> all the wrong reasons. If the need is truly so little, then
> the bar should be high.

I think we are in general agreement. I only suggest that the ability to make 
some discussions confidential within the PF realm acknowledges the fact that 
there may be times when discussions around legal conformance (or a member's 
lack thereof) would introduce fits within the member organizations legal 
department(s). Having recently worked for a large US-based financial 
organization, I know firsthand the sensitivity attached to such comments.

If we are to have valuable discussions around accessibility issues, then we 
should also ensure that when required, a mechanism is in place to shelter some 
of these comments from a completely open public record. I do not see this as 
any different than communication policies at some of our largest tech 
organizations (such as Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and Google) where employees do 
not comment on what may or may not be coming, or offer comments around certain 
technical decisions.

To put it bluntly, if you cannot confidentially admit to accessibility issues, 
then how can we collectively seek to address them? When it comes to legal 
issues, admitting guilt with the additional proviso that you want to change 
does not in any way remove the failure to meet the legal requirement. Forcing 
member organizations to publicly admit legal non-compliance won't foster more 
openness, in fact it will likely have the reverse effect and shut down dialog 
for fear of legal recriminations.

For that reason, I could live with 99% open - the world is never 100% perfect.


Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 21:41:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 April 2015 21:41:01 UTC