Re: ISSUE-30: longdesc "InstateLongdesc" - outlook

Hi John,

Please try to stick to the HTML WG Discussion Guidelines in future messages to WG lists: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines>

Let me highlight in particular guidelines, with some particular phrases highlighted:

	• Tone of messages must be maintained at the highest level of professionalism; flaming, sarcasm, or personal attacks will not be tolerated.
	• Don't attack a person. Disagree with an idea.
	• Respect the right of others to disagree.
	• Be polite and show respect. If you have nothing new, positive, informative or helpful to say, refrain from sharing it.

This is probably about your 20th public warning about sticking to the Discussion Guidelines.

Regards,
Maciej

On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:36 AM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote
>> 
>> On 09/06/2012 09:21 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>> 
>>> As one of the people who has spent the last 5 years working on
>> getting
>>> ARIA integrated into HTML5 I find the suggestion of removing it
>>> entirely because of one isolated issue, odiuous and inappropriate.
>>> 
>>> We have worked through many, many issues on ARIA integration and
>> while
>>> I am not entirely satisfied with the result, it is much better to
>> have
>>> it in than out. I cannot fathom why this would be even be suggested.
>>> 
>>> I for one would rigorously object to any such moves.
> 
> +1 to Steve's rigorous objection. 
> 
> I also wonder aloud if the idea of completely ripping ARIA out of HTML5 at
> this point in the game has broad support from the larger HTML5 Working Group
> - have the Chairs polled the WG to see how they feel about such a radical
> idea at this time?
> 
> 
>> 
>> Acknowledged.
>> 
>> Recapping the path that got us to this point:
>> 
>>  * We had extensive discussion over a long period of time which
>>    produced two proposals, and a decision that chose one of the two.
> 
> A decision that many feel is wrong, that over-stepped its Mandated bounds,
> and that directly ignored another Domain WG's direct and documented
> objections. This decision was taken by the Chairs, and is of serious enough
> concern that an Expedited Review of the decision by the W3C Director is now
> underway. It is not unreasonable then to suggest that perhaps the Chairs
> made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, but failing to own your mistakes
> (or possible mistakes) makes a bad scenario worse, and it seems here that
> you are suggesting that this problem is of someone else's making.
> 
> 
>> 
>>  * This produced a Formal Objection that appears to reject both
>>    proposals as acceptable solutions (which indicates a lack of
>>    participation) and cites an unwillingness to "cede decisions"
> 
> Actually, your characterization of the situation is both naïve and might I
> say false. There has been a lot of "participation" in the discussions
> leading up to the Chairs decision, including a lengthy Face-to-Face
> discussion in Mountain View not so long ago that you Sam were party to. 
> 
> Prior to the Decision, the Chairs were informed, both via this list as well
> as verbally that one of the proposals was stepping into work that belonged
> to, and with, another Working Group (work that this Working Group was
> mandated to do), and that proceeding to re-write the processing rules for
> ARIA had a direct and negative impact on another Candidate Recommendation at
> the W3C. The Chairs chose to ignore those warnings: it was the Chairs that
> were unwilling to "cede" anything to the larger W3C effort here, proceeding
> to attempt to re-write the ARIA specification despite vigorous objection.
> 
> 
>> 
>>  I hope you will agree that a lack of participation coupled with an
>>  unwillingness to cede decisions is a particularly deadly combination.
> 
> While "deadly" might be a bit hyperbolic, I will agree that it is a complex
> and non-productive combination. Suggesting that this is actually where we
> are today however is a bit of a leap, as while things may not be heading in
> a direction that the Chairs might like to see, we are neither stalled nor at
> an absolute impasse, as we wait for a decision from the Director. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The current state:
>> 
>>   * We have a set of proposals for the path forward and -- this is
>>     the key part -- NO ACTIVE DISCUSSION OR SCHEDULE.  I will note
>>     that one of those proposals is from a co-editor of ARIA 1.0
>>     itself.
> 
> This is blatantly false.
> 
> 1) "... a set of proposals for the path forward..."
> 
> No Sam, we currently have ONE PROPOSAL that the Chairs selected
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0159.html), ONE
> PROPOSAL that Ted has integrated into the Draft Spec
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0396.html), and ONE
> PROPOSAL that is currently the subject of an Expedited Formal Objection
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0402.html).
> 
> 
> 2) "NO ACTIVE DISCUSSION": 
>  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744
>  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18745 
> 
> 
> 3) "NO ACTIVE SCHEDULE":
> 
> In a series of emails I wrote to the Chairs in July
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0113.html) I
> specifically and pointedly asked the Chairs if they could share an actual
> Schedule with us with regard to the processing of Issues 204, 30, and 203.
> That request was met with a vague, hand-waving indication that lacked any
> specifics. You Sam, the Chairs, have chosen to keep the Scheduling here
> loose, and to now cite this as a reason to eject ARIA from HTML5 is beyond
> the depths of credibility.
> 
> I can perhaps understand the Chairs concern that the timing and scheduling
> of the Director's response, and the W3C directive to postpone work on Issue
> 30 as well, may place other timelines at risk, but that is the direct fault
> of the Chairs heading in: you have no one to blame but yourselves. YOU did
> not provide a specific timeline, YOU did not listen to another WG's direct
> objections, and YOU chose a proposal that led to 2 Formal Objections,
> including one that is now under Expedited Review. With regard to the last
> point, the Chairs had ample warning that proceeding with a decision that
> sought to impact another Candidate Recommendation would most certainly be
> met with a Formal Objection, and YOU chose to ignore that warning.
> 
> Own your mistakes Sam.
> 
> 
>> 
>> The paths forward:
>> 
>> 1) Active and vigorous discussion resumes, leading to the selection of
>>    one preferred alternative that everybody can live with.  If that
>>    occurs, I can assure you that the chairs will quickly and
>>    enthusiastically adopt said consensus.
> 
> Am I to then read here that the Chairs will ask the Editors to set aside the
> currently implemented decision, and will re-open Issue 204? While it is true
> that there are currently 2 bugs in Bugzilla that are seeking to put lipstick
> on the pig, if you want real and vigorous discussion that suggests a
> changing of the Spec Text, then it seems the only way that can happen is to
> re-open the Issue.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 2) Split out the portions where there is overlapping jurisdictions
>>    and make it a joint deliverable.
> 
> "...a joint deliverable".  Perhaps one of us missed a memo Sam, but is that
> not currently the mandate of the HTML5 Accessibility Task Force?
> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force) 
> 
> The problem here is that somehow the HTML5 Chairs appear to have lost sight
> of this W3C Mandate, and the charters under which the Task Force was struck:
> 
> 
> 	"The task force combines participation from the PFWG and the HTML
> WG. Accessibility specialists from the PFWG provide input on accessibility
> needs and solutions. Architects from the HTML WG provide input on
> architectural goals and non-accessibility considerations."
> 
> However, when the HTML5 Chairs specifically and directly ignore the
> recommendations of their "(equal) partner" Working Group, then it no longer
> becomes a joint deliverable, but rather a force-fed exercise that results in
> (to no surprise) animosity, frustration, gridlock, and Formal Objections.
> 
> 
>>    This is the less preferred
>>    of the two approaches.  I don't even know what the impact of
>>    doing so would be, but given that discussion has ceased, it would
>>    only be prudent to scope out such, and I've asked Robin to do so.
> 
> As is the Chairs right. What productive effort this will produce remains
> extremely unclear, but if you want to start Robin off by chasing his tail,
> by all means have at it.
> 
> JF
> 
>