Re: Split Issue 30?

Hi Maciej,

On Feb 10, 2012, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I think that the key consideration for the Working Group should be to
> ensure that every issue and every proposal gets fair consideration.
> This needs to take priority over considerations of which proposal
> benefits.

Fair consideration does not allow one proposal to benefit over another.

> It seems to me that your argument is purely based on giving a tactical
> advantage to the "Instate Longdesc" Change Proposal, not on making
> sure that *all* proposals  get a fair hearing,

That is completely backward. My argument is based on the fact that
Jonas stated on this list [1] in no uncertain terms that it would make
his proposal to obsolete longdesc stronger if his proposal was decided
first. Allowing that does not make for a fair hearing.

> I can understand why you would feel that way
> It's natural to want to advocate for your preferred proposal.

I can understand why you have been delaying the longdesc issue instead
of expediting it as you promised. It is natural for you to favor what
you want to prevail. The proposal that you authored and advocated in
2010 stated, "There is a superior alternative to longdesc:
aria-describedby". Your prior bias is documented. And now you will be
deciding the fate of longdesc. I have asked you this before [2] and
you have ignored my question. I now ask you again. Maciej, will you
please rescue yourself from adjudicating this issue?

> our job is to ensure that the process is fair to everyone, not to help
> a particular side win.


Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 12:48:40 UTC