Re: Agenda: HTML-A11Y Task Force on 17 February at 16:00Z for 60 minutes

On 02/17/2011 01:33 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to
>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate longdesc
>>> into the spec before Last Call.
>>
>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough information
>> to reopen the issue.  That being said it is my continued position[4][5]
>> that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues.
>
> Issue 30 was escalated February 6, 2008.
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30

... and closed 13 Aug 2010.

> The request would be to reopen that previously escalated issue and
> resolve it before last call based on new information.

If that request were to come in today, I would treat that as a request 
to reopen the issue on 2011 Feb 17, and therefore as a Last Call issue.

> Is that possible?

In short, I would oppose such an issue from being treated as a pre-LC issue.

I'll be blunt.  What I am about to say is with my co-chair hat on, but 
only representing 1 of 3 co-chairs:

Laura: the work you are now doing is excellent.  To everybody who feels 
that the decision was wrong or even hasty, I truly wish that even one of 
you had presented even a fraction of what Laura has now gathered.  In 
August of 2010, the discussion had been going on for 2.5 years.  Since 
then yet another half a year has passed.  If you had come forward with 
the type of data that Laura has now collected, you certainly would have 
made my life easier.

If we agree to reopen the issue (note: I said IF we chose to do so, even 
though it does seem quite likely at this point) the chairs would 
effectively be saying that there is a reasonable chance that this 
proposal will draw weaker objections than the counter proposal that was 
selected.

But that is ALL that such an action would be saying.  We don't ask 
people for objections to proposals or to rebut evidence which isn't even 
brought forward.  If we do reopen this issue, it would be with the 
intention that will give everybody adequate time to respond.

Meanwhile, we are asking these same individuals to focus on the open 
issues we need to resolve between now and last call:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/15

I will also note that there already are a number of issues that we have 
identified as last call issues:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/1

I think it would be a good idea to explicitly mention the above list in 
whatever announcements are made for last call.

> Thank you.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

> On 2/17/11, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 03:33 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> Hi Janina,
>>>
>>> Regrets for the meeting.
>>>
>>>> Issue-30 longdesc (any updates?)
>>>
>>> Some of us have been working on the change proposal [1]. Ideas for
>>> improvement on that and on the use cases [2] that require longdesc are
>>> still very welcome.
>>>
>>> I plan to submit the proposal to the HTML working group soon. Per the
>>> Chairs' timeline [3], every issue needs to have at least one Change
>>> Proposal by February 23. So on February 22, I plan to submit the
>>> change proposal to reopen HTML-ISSUE-30.
>>>
>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to
>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate longdesc
>>> into the spec before Last Call.
>>
>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough information
>> to reopen the issue.  That being said it is my continued position[4][5]
>> that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues.
>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Laura
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
>>> [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#uc
>>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0052.html
>> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 19:13:05 UTC