Re: Revert request

Hi Mike,

> If you're asking me to inform the Director that you've raised concerns
> about due process, I can do that.

Thank you. This is good to know and under serious consideration.
Although longdesc has not received due process and damage to longdesc
has been incurred because of the delays, my main concern here is to
move Issue-30 forward and have it resolved. If the director is not
needed to do that, it would be great.

> If you believe your concerns are not being duly considered by the group,
> then you may ask the Director to confirm or deny the particular decision
> your concerns relate to.

Again, I may be too naive and trusting here, but before I would do
something like that I would like to ask if the HTML Chairs now have a
concrete action plan with a timetable and concrete dates to expedite
ISSUE-30. Sam, Paul, and Maciej, do you have a plan? If so what is it?

Thanks again, Mike.

Best Regards,
Laura

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> If you're asking me to inform the Director that you've raised concerns
> about due process, I can do that.
>
> If you believe your concerns are not being duly considered by the group,
> then you may ask the Director to confirm or deny the particular decision
> your concerns relate to.
>
>  --Mike
>
> Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 2012-03-08 07:20 -0600:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Thank you for the Formal Objection information.
>>
>> What I am concerned about is that I asked to have the longdesc issue
>> reopened in good faith and trusted the Chairs to would provide due
>> process. They promised to expedite the issue. To date the issue has
>> not been expedited. It has not received due process. It has only
>> received foot dragging and delay. To date, concerns have not being
>> duly considered. Working group members were mislead.
>>
>> The process document states under "3.5 Appeal of a Chair's Decision" :
>> "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."
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#WGAppeals
>>
>> Would an appeal be applicable in this circumstance?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
>> > Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 2012-03-06 15:46 -0600:
>> >
>> >> Mike, I assume one recourse to all of this is to file an appeal to
>> >> have Last Call rescinded as it was entered into under a false promise
>> >> [1]. Is this correct?
>> >
>> > The mechanism the W3C process provides for an appeal is to raise a Formal
>> > Objection. You can raise a formal objection about any WG decision, and the
>> > WG is responsible for recording that FO and including it as part of any
>> > transition request to advance the spec the next maturity level for which
>> > Director approval is required. Director approval is (was) not required for
>> > the group to publish a Last Call WD. The next transition step that does
>> > require Director approval is advancing the spec to CR.
>> >
>> > So if you were to raise an FO, I think you would need to raise it
>> > (retroactively) against the May 24 WG Decision to proceed to Last Call:
>> >
>> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0318.html
>> >
>> > The chairs would then be responsible for recording it along with the
>> > other LC formal objections here:
>> >
>> >  http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html
>> >
>
> --
> Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/+



-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 20:35:36 UTC