W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

RE: Moving forward with Issue-204

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:21:55 +0900
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>,'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>,'Jonas Sicking' <jonas@sicking.cc>,'Edward O'Connor' <eoconnor@apple.com>,'Cynthia Shelly' <cyns@microsoft.com>,'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>,public-html@w3.org,'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>,'Frank Olivier' <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>,'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats' <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>,'Judy Brewer' <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6ed5c90b-ac47-4da3-b523-c4453b342137@email.android.com>
John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > So, since PF cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user
> > agents
> > > vis a vis Issue-204, can AllowAriaReferHidden accept "may" or
> "might"
> > > language vis a vis user agents?
> > 
> >  From the W3C Process[1]: "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work
> simply
> > by saying that they cannot live with a decision"
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-
> > dissent
> >From that same document:
> 3.3.2 Recording and Reporting Formal Objections
> In the W3C process, an individual may register a Formal Objection to a
> decision. A Formal Objection to a group decision is one that the
> reviewer
> requests that the Director consider as part of evaluating the related
> decision (e.g., in response to a request to advance a technical
> report).
> Note: In this document, the term "Formal Objection" is used to
> emphasize
> this process implication: Formal Objections receive Director
> consideration.
> The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English connotations.
> An individual who registers a Formal Objection SHOULD cite technical
> arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection;
> these
> proposals MAY be vague or incomplete. Formal Objections that do not
> provide
> substantive arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious
> consideration by the Director.
> A record of each Formal Objection MUST be publicly available. A Call
> for
> Review (of a document) to the Advisory Committee MUST identify any
> Formal
> Objections.
> (http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGArchiveMinorityViews)
> *************
> If the goal of the Chairs is to set a record for how many Formal
> Objections
> they can rack up in Last Call, then responses such as yours are quite
> useful
> in that regard. 
> When the PFWG (chartered to ensure W3C technologies meet accessibility
> requirements - http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter201006) comes back to a
> working group with a significant concern, and the Chairs dismiss that
> concern as "dissent" out of hand, then I think we have a fairly
> serious
> process problem on our hands. It was my belief that the role of the
> Chairs
> was to foster consensus, and NOT attempt to drive a wedge between
> various
> working group members. I encourage the Chairs to read the substance of
> the
> response, and not focus on the words used to convey that message.
> JF


The tone of this message to the leadership of this working group is out of line and disruptive. You have been warned many times not to abuse the group list with unproductive rhetorical posturing like this. This is the wrong way to make the points you are trying to make.

I am recommending to the chairs that they revoke your posting privileges for two weeks.

Michael[tm] Smith (mobile) http://people w3.org/mike/+
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 15:22:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:53 UTC