Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> Either/Or. Either we continue these endless discussions, or we do the
>>> work.  You asked for someone to take this on. I have expressed
>>> willingness. I'm also willing to step aside if someone else from the
>>> accessibility community wants to do this work. Or I'll work with
>>> others, with the understanding that we're making this change in the
>>> next couple of weeks, so this group can move on. Because we need to
>>> move on.
>> I agree that it is rubber meets the road time.
>>
>> My intent of +1 wasn't to suggest that there be only one option, but merely
>> to agree that what Ian described was an option.  It was my intent to convey
>> what Ian said in my *first* option, but clearly he said it better than I
>> did.
>>
>> On Thursday's HTML WG call, a reasonable number of PFWG people attended.  On
>> Friday morning I posted my opinion that "I don't wish to design and build
>> the poll but I hope that my initial draft is enough to get this work
>> moving." wasn't enough.  That was after seeing the reaction of people like
>> yourself, Ian, Maciej, and Laura.  Since that time I have been in contact
>> with a number of PFWG members, via IM and phone.  I believe that I have a
>> good working relationship with them, and I do believe that they now have a
>> good understanding of how to proceed, and that that understanding is
>> basically what I outlined in my 5 (and now 6ish) options.
>>
>> The current state in Ian's current draft is that @summary is conformant but
>> obsolete.  The proposed wording for a straw poll isn't complete.  I fully
>> agree with Maciej's response[1].
>>
>> Shelley, you've come the closest I have seen to a coherent counter
>> proposal[2].  I do mean that as a compliment, and I hope that you take it as
>> such.
>>
>> Meanwhile, let me be quite clear: If you believe that you can work with Ian,
>> please do so.  In fact, I will go further and say that that is my
>> preference.  For many, that's all they need to do.
> 
> No, I cannot work with Ian. I'm not even going to indulge in a phony
> pretense that I can.
> 
>> However, if you feel that the option of working with Ian has ceased to be
>> productive, don't let that stop you.  In fact, I encourage you to directly
>> make edits to one or more drafts based on the input you have heard and any
>> opinions you might have.  Feel free to use the cvs facilities of the W3C.
>>  If you would prefer something closer to the source that Ian edits, while I
>> don't have access to the WHATWG SVN, I do have a full git clone[3] that you
>> can pull from and merge and establish a branch etc.  It is up to date[4].
>>  You can include Manu's work, or not, as you see fit.  We can vote on them
>> together or separately, as people see fit.
>>
> 
> I have made my proposition for a vote. If this option makes it to a
> vote, and the group votes for it, I would be willing to make changes
> to the document that incorporate what I wrote in the proposal, and
> that also incorporates what William wrote, because the summary
> attribute isn't explained well.
> 
> However, I have been told in a private email, which you received a
> copy of Sam, that my offer to follow through on the edit, if consensus
> was met, was just adding to noise, and not being helpful.

If you are talking about the same email that I am (sent at Sat, 26 Jul 
2009 04:56:31 GMT), I read that suggestion differently.  In fact, quite 
the opposite of how you read it.  I read it as "don't wait".

> That this was throwing my offer of help back into my face was a given. Fine.
> 
>> From observation of you over the past several years, I don't believe that
>> any of the above is beyond your abilities.  If you have any questions, feel
>> free to contact me either publicly or privately (my preference is publicly,
>> as it will benefit all, and limit the times I have to repeat myself).  But
>> for those not as familiar with the Unix developers toolchain, simply
>> directly make edits to a document (Ian's source, or the published w3c doc, I
>> care not), and make available both the original that you edited and your
>> updated copy, and I will either personally do the diffs and integration and
>> publishing, or will find someone who will.
> 
> Though rusty with some of the technology, I could probably muddle my
> way through. And I appreciate your offer of help. I think, though,
> that my participation is actually making things worse. It's pretty
> obvious by now, even before that email, that.
> 
> Time for me to move on, and let you folks do you thing. Again, I'll
> help folks make edits. You don't have to be a member of the group to
> help folks make edits.

I think that if you were to publish a document with the edits that you 
suggested and solicit and respond to feedback from William and others 
that that would have the potential for moving things forward 
significantly, and I would do everything I can to help you.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 16:22:26 UTC