W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Clarifying the TAG

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:11:55 -0500
Message-Id: <200107201915.f6KJFMF01617@theinfo.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Many thanks for your response, Ian. As I have said the W3C has 
made a great step with TAG and I'm glad it is where it is.

On Thursday, July 19, 2001, at 04:01  PM, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>>> W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative and Internationalization
>>> Activity are already producing Architectural Recommendations in
>>> the areas of accessibility and internationalization,
>>> respectively.
>> Can you elaborate more on how their relationship with the TAG?
> Like the TAG, they are producing Architectural Recommendations.
> The TAG is not the only body within W3C to be doing so. And
> there are bodies outside W3C doing so as well. This paragraph
> is here to show that the TAG does not "control" Web Architecture.

Do you think there will be an official liason between the groups?

>>> Issues may be brought to the TAG by a variety of parties:
>>> Working Groups, the public, the W3C Team, as part of an appeal
>>> to the W3C Director, the TAG itself, etc.
>> Why not just say "Anyone may bring an issue to the TAG"? As
>> written, it implies that W3C Members are not allowed to raise
>> issues, since they aren't members of the "public".
> No, that's not implied. This is a list that includes some
> examples, but also "etc.". The parties in the list
> are noteworthy, but don't exclude Members.

So is there anyone who cannot bring an issue to the TAG?

>>> The TAG is expected to evolve with experience, and its charter
>>> may be revised as its role and W3C change. The Director must
>>> propose any non-editorial changes to the TAG charter for a
>>> four-week review by the Advisory Committee. After the end of
>>> the review, the Director must announce the new charter to the
>>> Advisory Committee.
>> The public should be able to propose changes to and have to
>> ratify the TAG charter. See the discussion of voting.
> Anyone can propose anything at any time. Good ideas will be
> retained. But there are benefits to Membership. Are you
> suggesting that we eliminate the Proposed Recommendation
> review as well? We could. But we might not have any Members
> left....

No, I'm not suggesting any such thing. Having more eyes looking 
over Proposed Recommendation is probably a good thing. But even 
if you did get rid of it, I think you'd still have quite a few 
members left. Something tells me that people don't join so that 
they can vote down specs.

>>> The deliverables of the TAG are its Architectural
>>> Recommendations, review reports, and issue resolutions. The TAG
>>> may publish a variety of materials (e.g., short-term
>>> resolutions to issues that arise)...
>> These resolutions must all be public and really should be
>> publicly appealable.

Will these resolutions be public?

> Thanks for sending comments,

Thank you for answering them,

       "Aaron Swartz"      | ...schoolyard subversion...
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://aaronsw.com/school/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Friday, 20 July 2001 15:11:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:29 UTC