W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2013

Re: PF Rejects TF's Work/Consensus CFC [Was: Call for Consensus: Procedure updates]

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:52:53 -0400
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130822045253.GB7533@concerto.rednote.net>

Responding with my best effort at TF Facilitator hat off, and PF Chair hat on ...

As PF has not further discussed this topic, my comments represent my
sense of PF's viewpoint. Also, please note that PF does not meet again until 4

Remaining comments in line below ...

Charles Nevile writes:
> Dear PF group,
> This is an explanation followed by a request for comment, since
> moving forward without understanding what the PF group will or won't
> object to seems like a waste of everyone's time...
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:41:12 +0400, Janina Sajka
> <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> >Colleagues:
> >
> >The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group considered approval of the
> >HTML-A11Y Task Force CFC referenced below during its regular
> >teleconference on 7 August. Discussion of this item during the PF
> >teleconference is logged at:
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Aug/0014.html
> >
> >In addition a CFC for the PFWG on this question was posted at:
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Aug/0011.html
> >
> >Disposition:
> >
> >The PFWG does not agree to the Work Statement and Consensus Policy as
> >submitted.
> OK.
> >PF notes that the role of teleconferences in the HTML-A11Y Task Force is
> >not discussed in these documents. Specifically, the role of resolutions,
> >actions and comments logged during teleconference discussions is not
> >explained as these do, or do not pertain to reaching TF consensus.
> >
> >*	PF notes that the TF's two sponsoring organizations, the PFWG
> >*	and the HTML-WG have different expectations and policies
> >*	regarding teleconferences with respect to achieving WG
> >consensus. For this reason alone PF believes the role of
> >teleconferences in TF deliberations should be explictly described.
> OK.
> >*	PF further notes that TF teleconferences have customarily
> >*	formally logged resolutions following teleconference discussion
> >*	whenever a documented consensus position of the TF was desired.
> >*	These resolutions were, in turn, also confirmed either by email
> >*	CFC or WBS survey. This has been TF practice since the TF's
> >*	inception. PF believes the TF's intention in this regard going
> >*	forward should be explicitly stated.
> The policy states that resolutions will be reached by a call for
> consensus on email. Which means that a teleconference is not
> sufficient to produce a formal resolution.
I believe our understanding is that it has never been sufficient. I
don't believe we're asking for a change in that respect.

> There is no reason not to start a Call for Consensus based on a
> proposal made in a teleconference.

OK, but this is not documented in the proposed Decision Policy.

> While the TF may have made
> resolutions in teleconferences and confirmed them via CfC, this is
> not actually in line with the original decision policy, which
> required a teleconference to adopt a draft resolution after it had
> been made available, but still required a subsequent call for
> consensus as proposed in the current document.
It is indeed the case that not all resolutions adopted by TF
teleconferences in the past were preceded by draft resolutions conveyed
by email, it is also not true that teleconference resolutions never
followed email or WBS canvasing. In fact, on some more strongly
contested points the teleconference only confirmed and voted a
resolution following on email or WBS surveys.

I believe the main concern for PF here is that it be explicitly
acknowledged that issues on which a formal consensus is developed
include the opportunity for people to discuss the issue directly with
one another via teleconference, or in face to face meeting, if such is
scheduled while a consensus is being formally sought and articulated.

In other words, I believe PF would not want to see the TF declare a consensus
without having calendered the issue in question as an agendum for a teleconference
or face to face discussion as part of the CFC process.

I don't believe PF has any concern as to how the CFC is initiated,
whether in a teleconference or not.

> >*	Without explicit statements regarding the role of the
> >*	teleconference in TF decisioning, it is unclear to PF whether
> >*	objections, and other comments logged during teleconferences,
> >*	are to be regarded as comments on a CFC.
> Comments logged in minutes sent to the mailing list are formal
> comments to the TF, and therefore where relevant to a CfC are formal
> comments on that CfC.
> I will add a note to this effect in the document we propose.

Still with PF hat on, I don't believe PF has a position on this one way
or the other. However, resuming my TF hat, I don't believe there's yet a
clear consensus on this in the TF.

And, if there's going to be provision for including comments captured by
a scribe during teleconference meetings, it will then be necessary to
clearly state how edits are to be made and approved. Does the TF want
that level of formalism in its "draft" minutes?

> >The PF requests the TF to add appropriate language to explain the role
> >of its teleconferences in its decisioning process with specific
> >reference to the above points.
> Please respond explaining whether we need to explicitly say that
> teleconferences, face to face meetings (and other gatherings or
> processes apart from the web-based survey or call directly to the
> mailing list) do not have the power to make binding resolutions, or
> whether the document is clear enough as is.

Back to PF hat ...

Hopefully, my comments above will help. But, to restate ...

PF would be unlikely to agree that binding resolutions could be
conducted with consideration during a teleconference or face to face
meeting. in other words, PF is objecting to the possibility that a
binding resolution could be made exclusively by email or WBS.


> >Janina Sajka, Chair
> >Protocols and Formats WG
> >
> >
> >Charles Nevile writes:
> >>On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:29:03 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile
> >><chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> >>
> >>>This is a call for consensus on the proposal
> >>>
> >>>The Task Force wishes to adopt the work statement at
> >>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-tf-draft.html and the
> >>>decision-making procedures proposed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/att-0085/consensus-procedures.html
> >>>
> >>>Silence will be taken as assent, but positive responses are
> >>>preferred. Please reply before midnight in the last time zone, on
> >>>Monday July 29.
> >>
> >>This call has passed. We will therefore move through the processof
> >>adopting the new procedures.
> >>
> >>cheers
> >>
> >>Chaals
> >>
> >>--
> >>Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
> >>      chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
> >
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
>       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 04:53:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:27 UTC