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

Re: Accessibility Task Force

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:04:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4AAA12A9.8060404@intertwingly.net>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
CC: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Janina Sajka wrote:
> I would have no problem changing "commit" to "propose" as you suggest
> below. I expect PF would not object to that. PF certainly does not intend to assert
> authority to edit any other Wg's documents. While the intent of a joint
> TF is to develop mutually satisfactory solutions, it is still the
> exclusive responsibility of each Wg to agree on and effect its own edits.

That works for me.

I believe that what exists in the proposal is based on input I provided 
prior to the two new co-chairs coming on board.  My concern was (and is) 
that the worst case scenario is one where one side (not participating in 
the TF) simply says "no", and the other side (participating in the task 
force) simply says "because I said so".

My input was that the TF needs to have at least one person who is ready, 
willing, and able to edit if necessary; even if the universal hope is 
that such is never necessary.  It has been my experience (both 
elsewhere, and so far in the history of this WG), that the existence of 
such a person makes both sides more reasonable.

> Janina

- Sam Ruby

> Edward O'Connor writes:
>> Hi,
>> I'm confused by some of the wording in the HTML/PF joint TF proposal:
>>                 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force
>> In the proposal, the TF's list of deliverables includes "committing spec
>> edits of HTML." Yet it also states that the TF is to be advisory:
>>> The Task Force does not, however, represent consensus[...] All output
>>> of the Task Force should be considered as proposals, subject to
>>> vetting and modification by the WG receiving the proposal.
>> This is point #6 of the outline Paul posted earlier:
>>> 6. TF would not make final decisions which would be made by HTML
>>> and/or PF WGs
>> Given the advisory nature of the TF, I'm assuming "commiting spec edits
>> of HTML" is supposed to mean something like "proposing spec edits to
>> the HTML WG," but that's not how I originally read it, and perhaps
>> others were confused by this too. Could this text be made more clear
>> before it makes its way into the official TF charter?
>> Thanks.
>> Ted
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 09:05:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:56 UTC