Re: Accessibility Task Force

Michael,

if the WAI PF participants want to make substantial contributions to the
HTML 5 specification, they ought to comply with the W3C Patent Policy
like anyone else. The WAI/HTML TF proposed charter makes it clear that
the goal is to make substantial contributions to the HTML 5
specification. The easiest for that is for them to join the HTML WG. The
mandate of the TF would not differ from what is proposed in the WAI/HTML
TF charter and could still be managed by both Groups. It will still be a
joint TF, but we shouldn't create task forces that permit to go around
the W3C Patent Policy.

Philippe

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:53 -0400, 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.
> 
> 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
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 18:20:41 UTC