W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: PROPOSAL: Procedure to Promote Progress With Accessibility Issues in HTML5

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:08:03 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0907201008o1a48043cp9ab0e12a7d8f0a5a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, schwer@us.ibm.com, sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Hi Sam,

>> Our proposal is real.
>
> I was unclear.  I meant concrete technical proposals on specific features

Lack of procedure as well as agreed upon principles is the elephant in
the room that has been blocking that endeavor.

> As a general rule,
> it is best to start with an open discussion, on public-html. Starting with a
> PROPOSAL with ten signatories is an anti-pattern, i.e., something to be
> avoided.

This is another new rule. A couple of months ago it was stated:

"Meanwhile, please produce documents.  Don't feel like you have to wait
on Ian or anyone.  Or better yet, collaborate on one or more of the
existing documents.  If any of these gets to the point where there are
more than three independent contributors actively participating in the
development of that document, we can explore making such a document a
product of the Working Group.  Initially, I would proceed with such a
decision by a process the ASF calls Lazy Consensus, which means that
if any member of the group objects, the matter would come to a formal
W3C vote.  At the present time, I'm dealing with Maciej's suggestion to
resolve the one outstanding Formal Objection to the Design Principles
document in exactly such a manner right now."  [1]

More that three independent contributors actively collaborated in an
effort to strengthen the Accessibility Principle in the Design
Principles document [2] but it was stated that process issues were not
welcome there. [3] Hence the procedure document [4] was further effort
at collaboration per your advice to produce documents.

I have three questions:

1. Is the call for more editors collaborating to produce documents
genuine or is it a thinly veiled attempt at something else?

2. What exactly is the procedure for how the HTML WG is to fulfill the
Charter's mandate to "cooperate with the Web Accessibility Initiative
to ensure that the deliverables will satisfy accessibility
requirements"?

3. Who will determine if deliverables satisfy accessibility requirements?

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0169.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0661.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0249.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0556.html

Past messages inquiring about official HTML WG procedures:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0145.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0232.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Feb/0010.html

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 17:09:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC