- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:28:15 -0500
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > Shelley Powers writes: >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM, <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >> Janina, you didn't respond on each individual item. > > Yes, it was our group decision to aggregate our response for our own > convenience. That is true. Whether or not that is appropriate is > certainly arguable. > > Please understand, though, that we did consider each of your proposals > individually. Some we ruled out of scope for the TF. Where we had a > concern, we discussed each separately, as I and others have pointed out. This is confusing, Janina. Your resolution rejected _all_ of the change proposals related to removing elements, but you just wrote that some of these the group felt were outside of the scope of the accessibility work group. If this is true, if I understood correctly, then it was incorrect to blanket reject all of the change proposals. I'm not sure if meeting minutes or emails outside of change proposals and counter proposals count as effective rationales in the decision process. I guess the co-chairs will have to decide that one. For myself, no offense intended for the minute taker (I know how difficult a task this is), I find the minutes too difficult to follow in order to effectively respond except at a higher level. I'll do my best, but I'm not sure, now, which of the elements you considered within the province of the TF, and which you felt were out of scope. > > Janina > Shelley >> >> We shouldn't have to look through meeting minutes and emails in order >> to find responses in regards to each element. These were separate >> change proposals. Because they happened at the same time should not >> have impacted on how the group responded to these _individual_ change >> proposals. >> >> In particular, the group wasn't even interested in several of the >> elements. From the discussion, the view on some seemed to be >> indifferent, at best. That, to me, is not reflected in your >> resolution. >> >> At a minimum, you could have posted about each of these items as a >> separate poll item, and then allowed your group to voice their >> interests over each, individually. >> >> Regardless, the only official response I see to this group on these >> items is a single paragraph. That is the only item to which I can >> respond. >> >> >> > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 >> >> I also wish this discussion would happen in the HTML WG, because my >> emails get blocked to the html-ally email group. >> >> Shelley > > -- > > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > > 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 Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:28:49 UTC