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

RE: CfC: Close ISSUE-203 media-descriptions by Amicable Resolution

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:41:34 -0700
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <eoconnor@apple.com>
Cc: "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017c01cd54ad$a19b5740$e4d205c0$@ca>
Sam Ruby wrote:	
> I object to this characterization.  It is expressed in a manner that we
> will not tolerate on this list:
> On 06/27/2012 03:16 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> >
> > This Apple employee further states that he has no idea on how or what
> he
> > will be hoping to propose as a counter proposal

Ted wrote:
"Unfortunately I don't have a concrete and complete change proposal at
this time"

> (and in fact is
> asking if
> > anyone else can help him), 

Ted wrote:
(I'd also be happy to have help on such a change proposal if others in
the WG agree with me that the change proposed in [1] is undesirable.)

> has not engaged in any dialog around this
> topic
> > prior to yesterday, 

A review of http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/203 "Related Emails"
shows Ted's name appearing twice, both times as scribe from the weekly
telecons. No other email or correspondence on this topic that I can find
(but happy to be proven wrong).

> and now needs 2 additional weeks to bring forward
> an
> > Alternative Change Proposal

June 26 to July 10 = 14 days/2 weeks

> so that we can then go through the
> additional
> > steps of thrust, {delay} and parry (a.k.a. "online discussion") in an
> effort
> > to avoid a WBS survey; 

Do the Chairs plan on going directly to a WBS survey on July 11th? If no,
are there current plans and future date to take Issue 203 to WBS Survey?
After the July 10th delivery of the Alternate Change proposal, what *are*
the next steps?

> and after that protracted effort is engaged
> upon, we
> > still have a possibility of a WBS Survey.


That you take exception to my bluntness I get; I'm blunt, and often
abrassive. I have not stated any falsehood or untruth, but simply restated
what appears to have taken place from my perspective. 

I (we?) still have no idea *why* Ted has objected to this CP (I have my
suspicions) - only the reason why it took him 6 days past the deadline to do
so; and I (we?) still have no idea why the Chairs have chosen to entertain
this objection, based on zero public rationale. I understand giving any
particular actor enough time to get their work done, but since nobody
outside of the Chairs have any idea what in fact that work is or will look
like, there is an appalling lack of transparency going on in a public
Working Group.

Since everyone seems to be stating their objections today, I object to

> Ted has been asked, by the chairs, to help out on a number of issues;
> and when he has done so the results are generally positive.  Because we
> have prioritized his workload, it made sense to give some latitude on
> an issue that we did not include in that prioritization.

To be perfectly clear, this is not a direct criticism of Ted (with whom I
have worked with directly on at least 2 other outstanding Issues). I respect
Ted, and his efforts towards progress and consensus (and have told him that
directly more than once), while still recognizing that the massive amount of
current deliverables he is committed to is indeed creating a log-jam within
this WG. (And there is no denying that many of those delayed Issues are
indeed Accessibility related: 194, 199, 201, and 204 - and now Issue 203)

No Sam, my frustration is with the Chairs, and the way in which you now seem
to be playing fast and loose with your own stated rules.  If John Foliot
were to write to the Working Group and Chairs today and stated that I
objected to the Amicable Resolution of "ISSUE-198 innerHTML-patent-policy"
on the basis that I was previously too busy to respond on time (and/but with
no other explanation), do you or anyone else reading this note today think I
would even get the time of day? 

What makes this Media/Accessibility related issue any different? Had Ted
been previously involved in any of the Media Accessibility work over the
past 2.5 years then perhaps there might be some justification there, but
outside of one teleconference call about 3 weeks ago (where we had an
amicable and productive call around Issue 204), and some F-2-F discussion at
the latest meetings in Mountain View (again around Issue 204) Ted has been
absent any discussion around this topic or media accessibility in general.

So can you, or any of the Chairs, explain why this particular issue and CP
is due such special treatment today? Or will it remain a decision taken
behind closed doors? 

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 21:42:10 UTC

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