Re: Accessibility Task Force

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:11:02 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:

>
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Michael Cooper wrote:
>
>> A concern for me with this approach is that, if the task force is not a  
>> joint task force, its mandate is different. An accessibility task force  
>> that is only answerable to the HTML WG could come up with approaches  
>> for accessibility in HTML that would not be acceptable to the PFWG -  
>> even if there are several PFWG members who participate as HTML members.  
>> Being a joint task force helps to ensure the requirement that its  
>> outputs are satisfactory to *both* working groups.
>
> Even if we constitute the task force formally as an HTML WG Task Force  
> for the sake of patent policy, I believe points 7 and 8 of the proposal  
> would stand:
>>>>> 7. Someone from each WG would be designated to report back to their  
>>>>> WG on the work of the TF.
>>>>> 8. Facilitators of the TF would be selected jointly by PF and HTML  
>>>>> WG chairs.
>
> In addition, it's likely we would informally expect the Task Force to be  
> accountable to both Working Groups and to have a mission to improve  
> cross-WG communication.

I would actually expect an accessibility task force in W3C to be formally  
required to get agreement from WAI (presumably WAI-PF since that's the  
relevant group) on decisions.

Some informal "well, we talked to a couple of guys from PF and they  
agreed" doesn't strike me as good enough (there are already specific  
examples of people whose sense of what is reasonable not being in  
accordance with the expressed opinion of PF...)

> Would this address the concerns?

No. I think there needs to be the check of formal sign-off (and therefore  
some pushing to make sure that process is helpful in getting improvements,  
not just some process albatross).

cheers

Chaals

>   - Maciej
>
>>
>> Also, the goal of the PFWG in setting up a joint task force was to  
>> create a new formal channel for communication between PFWG and HTML WG.  
>> Communication in the past has been difficult and disorganized at times,  
>> and we are hoping this channel would help to improve that situation,  
>> literally by creating a way to "channel" discussion. By not being a  
>> joint task force, that opportunity would be reduced.
>>
>> I am not speaking on behalf of the PFWG, as there has not been  
>> opportunity to check with the group. It is possible that the PFWG will  
>> not share these concerns and will approve going ahead as planned. It  
>> may be difficult for us to arrive at a consensus quickly as our  
>> teleconferences are canceled next week due to a conference. I will see  
>> if we can come to consensus by email in time for the next HTML meeting.  
>> I myself will be unable to attend that call due to the same conference  
>> but there may be someone present who can represent PFWG.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>>>
>>> So,
>>>
>>> the current TF proposed charter mentions:
>>> [[
>>> As part of the above, the task force expects to participate in the
>>> following deliverables of the sponsoring Working Groups:
>>>
>>>       * Commiting spec edits of HTML (HTML WG deliverable)
>>>       * Formal spec review of HTML on behalf of PFWG (PFWG deliverable)
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> It doesn't say anything about WAI ARIA.
>>>
>>> As such, the easiest solution to resolve the Patent Policy question is
>>> indeed to create the task force within the HTML Working Group and gets
>>> the WAI PF folks who wants to participate in the TF to join the HTML  
>>> WG.
>>>
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 14:01 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>>
>>>> PF discussed the 8 points below during our weekly telecon today, 9
>>>> September:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-pf-minutes.html
>>>>
>>>> We are in agreement with the 8 points as given below.
>>>>
>>>> Janina
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul Cotton writes:
>>>>
>>>>> >From the Sep 3 HTML WG minutes:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-html-wg-minutes.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> mjs: chairs will be together face-to-face tomorrow, and this can be
>>>>>>   among what we discuss
>>>>>>   ... anybody have comments to make about this on the call today?
>>>>>>   ... not seeing any comments, propose we move to next agenda item
>>>>>>
>>>>> The HTML WG chairs and W3C Team did discuss this topic last Friday  
>>>>> and came up with the following outline for a joint Accessibility TF:
>>>>>
>>>>> Accessibility TF:
>>>>>  1. Any WG member from either the HTML or PF WGs can join (opt in  
>>>>> model)
>>>>>  2. Separate email list for TF (email address TBD).
>>>>>  3. Both WGs would be obligated re Patent Policy on any W3C  
>>>>> Recommendation track document that is impacted by the TF work.
>>>>>  4. The Patent Policy obligations would be mentioned in the Status  
>>>>> section of said documents.
>>>>>  5. TF would have a separate meeting slot (day and time TBD).
>>>>>  6. TF would not make final decisions which would be made by HTML  
>>>>> and/or PF WGs
>>>>>  7. Someone from each WG would be designated to report back to their  
>>>>> WG on the work of the TF.
>>>>>  8. Facilitators of the TF would be selected jointly by PF and HTML  
>>>>> WG chairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussion on this matter ended with Philippe taking the following  
>>>>> Action Item:
>>>>>
>>>>> ACTION ITEM: Philippe is going to look into some questions we have  
>>>>> about how the W3C Patent Policy obligations would apply to a joint  
>>>>> TF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments on the above outline are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> /paulc
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>>>>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>>>>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --Michael Cooper
>> Web Accessibility Specialist
>> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
>> E-mail cooper@w3.org
>> Information Page
>>
>


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 17:46:36 UTC