Re: consensus and last call

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> Hi sam,
> in your post HTML reunification [1] you wrote:
> 
> "The current draft hasn’t been built based on consensus, and this
> needs to be resolved prior to Last Call."
> 
> Is this still your position and if so, do you have plans to rectify
> this situation?

Yes.

In general, I prefer not to talk about hypotheticals, but if it is the 
case that canvas is not accessible, and that there is strong agreement 
on "We will design all features so as to ensure that they are accessible 
to users with disabilities", then I would simply suggest we delay Last 
Call until this is addressed.

> "The goal here is not to repeat the exercise where people present use
> cases and continue to have the HTML working group be a gatekeeper and
> king maker and sole determinant as to which features are permissible
> and which are not in the open web."
> 
> This I think is still the current state of affairs. How close to the
> projected last call date do we have to be before changes are made (if
> they are made) to how the HTML working group conducts business?
> 
> note: in the second quote you refer to the "HTML working group" as
> being the gate keeper. I think that the HTML wg chairs are currently
> the gatekeepers (ie the editors) gatekeeper and will remain so until
> participation in the working group is more than just arguing against
> one person who has control over the content of the html 5
> specification.

Another topic I don't like to spend much time on is "gate keepers", 
particularly when we have a W3C team contact who is willing to give 
write access to the document repository for the group to anybody with a 
credible offer to edit a specification:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0654.html

> [1] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 10:55:25 UTC