- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:36:00 -0600
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
> I have responded to this item. See: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Feb/0064.html Thank you, Paul. Laura On 2/24/11, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote: > I have responded to this item. See: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Feb/0064.html > > /paulc > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Laura Carlson > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:31 PM > To: HTML Accessibility Task Force > Cc: Janina Sajka; Judy Brewer > Subject: Fwd: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG > > For your information: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Feb/0063.html > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> > Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:27:00 -0800 > Subject: new information & the re-opening of issues in the HTML WG > To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby > <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> > Cc: www-archive@w3.org > > Hi, > > What criteria will be used to determine the "newness" of information when > considering reopening issues in the HTML WG? Allowing the elaboration of > information that, in truncated form, was available to the working group at > the time the original decision was made doesn't strike me as a high enough > bar. > > In many cases, when the working group's escalation and decision process has > been fully exercised and a decision rendered, the issue in question was > contentious and divisive. If it isn't clear to the working group that > substantive new information is available *that would have caused some > participants to see things differently when the issue was first decided*, I > think the presumption should be that such issues don't get reopened. > > I'd like to see something like Sam's "three or more independent and > established participants" rule for reopening issues due to new information. > If we can't find three or more independent and established participants who > can say "I would have gone the other way on this issue, had I known then > what I know now," we shouldn't reopen the issue. > > > Thanks for your consideration, > Ted > > -- > Edward O'Connor > eoconnor@apple.com > > -- > Laura L. Carlson > > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 20:38:47 UTC