- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:52:57 -0700
- To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Frank Olivier'" <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > > So, since PF cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user > agents > > vis a vis Issue-204, can AllowAriaReferHidden accept "may" or "might" > > language vis a vis user agents? > > From the W3C Process[1]: "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply > by saying that they cannot live with a decision" > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing- > dissent >From that same document: 3.3.2 Recording and Reporting Formal Objections In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to a decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the reviewer requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the related decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance a technical report). Note: In this document, the term "Formal Objection" is used to emphasize this process implication: Formal Objections receive Director consideration. The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English connotations. An individual who registers a Formal Objection SHOULD cite technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection; these proposals MAY be vague or incomplete. Formal Objections that do not provide substantive arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious consideration by the Director. A record of each Formal Objection MUST be publicly available. A Call for Review (of a document) to the Advisory Committee MUST identify any Formal Objections. (http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews) ************* If the goal of the Chairs is to set a record for how many Formal Objections they can rack up in Last Call, then responses such as yours are quite useful in that regard. When the PFWG (chartered to ensure W3C technologies meet accessibility requirements - http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter201006) comes back to a working group with a significant concern, and the Chairs dismiss that concern as "dissent" out of hand, then I think we have a fairly serious process problem on our hands. It was my belief that the role of the Chairs was to foster consensus, and NOT attempt to drive a wedge between various working group members. I encourage the Chairs to read the substance of the response, and not focus on the words used to convey that message. JF
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 14:53:53 UTC