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

Matt May wrote:
> 
> I'd like to ask someone with enough patience to strip out the 2% of
> John's post that may be considered questionable to attempt to address
> the remaining 98% of it, which offered salient points to counter
> multiple assertions of the chairs. Maciej's message is not a response,
> and it needs not to be the end of the thread.

After taking the weekend to regroup and chill out, I will take a stab at
that Matt:

1) The Chairs are contemplating removing all of ARIA from the current HTML5
specification:

> As this may take some time to resolve, I would like to Robin Berjon to
scope
> out what it would take to split out all ARIA integration from the HTML
> document into a separate spec that could proceed at a different pace from
> the rest of the document...

Question: Have the Chairs polled the larger Working Group to see if this is
indeed the direction this Working Group wishes to pursue?


2) The email that Sam authored (on behalf of the Chairs?) suggested to
outline the path to where we are today:

> 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.
> 
>   * 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"

Missing from this outline is the facts that:
  a) there are actually 2 Formal Objections in place against the Issue 204
Decision
(http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#ISSUE-204), 
  b) one of the Formal Objections
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0402.html) was also
requested to have an Expedited Review by the Director, and that this Review
is in fact underway.



Having re-read that second Formal Objection multiple times, I can see no
relevant passage that "rejects both proposals". 

Question: Can any of the chairs point to the passage which leads them to
conclude that Janina Sajka's F.O. rejects both proposals?



Further, the author of that Formal Objection, Janina Sajka, was present at
the Face-to-Face meeting in Mountain View where a lot of concrete progress
was made on issue 204, and so leading up to the Straw Poll for Issue 204,
there was indeed "active" participation by many on this particular topic.
Once an issue is polled however, and a decision is provided by the Chairs,
it would seem that there is very little room for additional participation to
take place.

Question: Once a decision is delivered by the Chairs, outside of filing
Formal Objections, or filing new bugs, what other kind of participation do
the Chairs expect from the Working Group?

Questions: 
	Have I mis-characterized anything here? (If so, please set the
public record straight)
	Do the Chairs admit that the "path" as outlined in the initial email
was perhaps incomplete?



3) Re: "Ceding Decisions" the email states:

>  I hope you will agree that a lack of participation coupled with an
>  unwillingness to cede decisions is a particularly deadly combination.

Question: 
	Do the Chairs acknowledge that it is their unwillingness (in the
original decision) to cede to the advice of another formally chartered
Working Group at the W3C, despite specific and strenuous objections that
they do so?
	Is there an expectation from the Chairs that all other W3C Working
Groups automatically cede to the HTML WG and not vice-versa?



4) The original email stated:

>   * 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.

Questions:
	Given that the Chairs made a decision with regard to Issue 204, and
that one of the Editors has already implemented that decision, can the
Chairs provide this Working Group with the "set" of proposals it is
referencing here?
	In my initial response, I pointed to 2 active bugs around the
implementation of the Decision for Issue 204. Will the chairs consider them
to be Active Discussion or not?
	With regard to Scheduling, do the Chairs have a published Schedule
with regard to Issues 204, 30 and 203 that is currently jeopardized by the
fact that the issue 204 Decisions is now sitting in front of the Director
awaiting a decision to the Formal Objection? Will the Chairs produce such a
Schedule at any time? 


5) Re: "The paths forward" the initial email stated:

> 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.
> 

... to which I posed the following question: "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?"

That question remains unanswered today.


> 2) Split out the portions where there is overlapping jurisdictions
>    and make it a joint deliverable.

Question: Do the Chairs acknowledge that the Accessibility Task Force is
indeed Chartered to do just this? 

	"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."
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force)

If this is indeed true, will the Chairs commit to better listening to
Objections from PFWG when they surface as such, and give the appropriate
weight they deserve in any decision process?

<opinion>It strikes me that without this, there is little point in having a
Joint Task Force.</opinion>

I look forward to answers to these questions.

Respectfully,

JF

Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 19:38:25 UTC