- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:28:18 -0400
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "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>
Sam Ruby writes: > 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. I agree with your strategic analysis. But this person would be empowered to commit proposed spec language by virtue of being a member of the HTML Wg, and not as a member of any joint TF. Janina > >> 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 >> -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.202.595.7777; sip:janina@CapitalAccessibility.Com Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://CapitalAccessibility.Com Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org Linux Foundation http://a11y.org Chair, Protocols & Formats Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 13:29:08 UTC