Re: Process quibble Re: Joint meeting ... on ... aria issues

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 19:39 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:26:00 +0200, Richard Schwerdtfeger  
> <> wrote:
> > If it were publicly available (HTML, XHTML, SVG) we could potentially  
> > have 100 people on the call. As it was it was a challenge to minute
> > this. I do not want to manage a call of that size and we need to get
> > things moving forward.
> While I appreaciate the issue if 100 people *do* turn up, I think that it  
> is counter to the agreement under which the public groups work to set up a  
> private meeting with your chosen set of participants.
> There is a precedent for each group selecting people to represent it (e.g.  
> Forms task force) which is much more in line with W3C process. It can take  
> a little longer to set up, but it should resolve problems like half a  
> group feeling they are unrepresented ...

Your point is well made, Charles.

Meanwhile, I happened to hear about this meeting a day or so before it
happened. I knew it didn't follow W3C process for open meetings
(7 days notice for teleconferences), but I chose not to put a stop
to it. I checked with Al Gilman to see if he was OK with it, and he was.

So I think a joint task force and such might be a good idea; meanwhile,
the time seems right for people to get together and talk about this,
so I didn't think it was in the best interest of the community overall
to stop the meeting. After all, I couldn't really do that; all I could
do is get W3C staff to not attend, which would make the odds of public
records even lower.

As Richard says, "This is not to say that we have agreement from ANY of
the working groups - just that we had a discussion and tried to come to
a common proposal."

I'm in touch with Al Gilman about face-to-face time during the
upcoming Tech Plenary.

And I'm happy to put this on tomorrow's HTML WG teleconference agenda.

> When working outside W3C process like this, I am very glad that you took  
> minutes and posted them to the relevant groups. That's vastly superior to  
> just editing a spec in such a way that the group does not know where the  
> change came from or why.
> So thank you for doing that.

Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 18:25:15 UTC