W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Status of Leif's Appeal / Issue 30 Objections

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'HTMLwg WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>
Message-ID: <021501cb3fdc$c4b4a840$4e1df8c0$@edu>
Hi Paul, Michael,

While not actually captured in today's Accessibility Task Force meeting
minutes[1], thank you Paul for taking up the task of informing the larger
Working Group of the current status of this issue. Related to the
approximate time-lines question, I also have a number of questions that
would benefit from clarification from the Chairs.

Concerned members are already aware of Leif's Appeal to the current ruling
by the Chairs (which I personally support fully), however it is unclear to
me how to add additional information to the discussion. Previously I had
signaled an intent to file a Formal Objection, and I am wondering if that
still would be the appropriate next step for me, given that I have (what I
believe to be) new facts to be considered. If the Chairs choose to re-open
the issue due to Leif's Appeal, I could add these new facts to the
re-opened issue, or I could simply move forward and author a Formal
Appeal, which would then be a separate work item apart from Leif's Appeal
for the Chairs to address. Some guidance on how best to move forward would
be appreciated please (and thanks).

Regarding a question of procedural policy, Mike Smith indicated on today's
Accessibility Task Force call that the preference was that the Working
Group and the Chairs deal with objections at the Working Group level (in
what Mike referred to as the 'spirit' of the process), and while I agree
with the intent and spirit perspective, I also believe that Leif was
crystal clear in his intent: he filed an Appeal, an option provided to him
both by W3C Process as well as one articulated by Paul himself in an email
dated August 12th[2], and further, I believe that Leif's intent was
clearly understood by the Chairs[3].

To quote from that first letter (and W3C Process):

	"When group participants believe that their concerns are not being
duly considered by the group, they MAY ask the Director (for
representatives of a Member organization, via their Advisory Committee
representative) to confirm or deny the decision. The participants SHOULD
also make their requests known to the Team Contact. The Team Contact MUST
inform the Director when a group participant has raised concerns about due
process."

I believe Leif was clear in his intent when he wrote: "The dialog I had
with co-chair Sam and co-chair Maciej, in the end caused me to write this
Appeal to the Director - via the Team Contact, Mike Smith." [4]

W3C Process now states that Mike MUST bring this Appeal to the Director,
and in the 'spirit' of W3C Process I believe that timeliness here is also
important. Should the Director choose to a) not respond, b) defer judgment
c) return the question back to the Working Group and Chairs or d) choose
another course of action, is I believe the Director's prerogative. However
it is clear that the Director MUST be formally informed, and so as part of
a request for clarification of specifics and time-lines, Michael can you
confirm when you intend to comply with this MUST requirement and advise
the Director of this Appeal?

Thank you in advance.

JF

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-a11y-minutes.html 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0065.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0146.html 
[4] http://www.malform.no/messages/appeal-issue-30.html 
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 20:26:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 20:26:51 GMT