Re: hypothetical question on longdesc

I, personally, do not believe the chairs are "jerks". I want that noted.



On Mar 17, 2012, at 11:21 PM, "John Foliot" <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 
>> Meanwhile, we desperately need to break out of the following state:
>> 
>> 1) We need a decision *now* on longdesc
>> 2) We are still working on proposals for longdesc
>> 3) The chairs are jerks
> 
> 1) If not *now* Sam, *when*? 
> 
> In May of 2011, the Chairs responded to Objections to Last Call by stating
> to the Working Group the following:
> 
>    "After discussion with the PFWG Chair, the Team, and the Director,
> we have concluded that it is best to proceed with this issue still open,
> give a clear indication of that status, and expedite the processing of the
> reopened issue during Last Call."
> - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0347.html 
> 
> Respectfully, can we get a definition of "expedite" from the Chairs?  My
> trusty online Merriam-Webster defines that word as:
> 
>    1: to execute promptly 
>    2: to accelerate the process or progress of: speed up
> 
> - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expedite 
> 
> After waiting patiently for over 10 months, can we get a specific date when
> the Chairs plan to actually do something here? Failing to communicate even a
> time-line to the Working Group leaves everyone in a state of uncertainty.
> This failure of communication falls squarely on the shoulders of the Chairs,
> as the next step is clearly yours.
> 
> 
> 2) Has anyone actually come forward with a new Change Proposal for Issue 30?
> 
> 
> After the last round of churn, the Chairs opened a new Issue (based upon
> lord-knows-what: there is a significant lack of clarity in the posting of
> Issue 204, including actually referencing aria-hidden, which is out of scope
> for this Working Group). In fact, the entire linkage of ARIA and hidden
> content has very little to do with the question of whether @longdesc should
> remain conformant in HTML5. Alternative techniques should in no way negate
> existing techniques, or the need for them, the support for them or the
> validity of them.  
> 
> Had the Chairs done what they promised to do last May (See #1 above), then
> this extended, continuous churn would not exist today. You are reaping what
> you have sown.
> 
> 
> 3) Nobody has called the Chairs jerks (except of course you). What many have
> continued to express is a sense of frustration that the Chairs are
> deliberately sitting on their hands, waiting for some kind of magical
> solution to arrive. The lack of clear leadership and unambiguous timeline on
> when you plan to address Issue 30, an almost willful abandonment of the
> promise to "expedite" this Issue, is palpable and real - to the point that
> even you are feeling that the Chairs are being perceived as "jerks".
> 
> And so I directly challenge you and your fellow Chairs to step up to the
> plate and publish some dates. Issue 204 (aka the ARIA stall) is, as you have
> noted, wrapping up despite your favored extension of the deadline to March
> 10th (from Feb. 28th), and there are (by my count) 2 proposals before the
> Chairs. When will that Issue be addressed? March? April? May? The 1st, the
> 15th, the 30th?
> 
> Once Issue 204 is resolved, when will Issue 30 be addressed? March? April?
> May? The 1st, the 15th, the 30th?
> 
> Give us a date Sam, and let's get on with it.
> 
>> We need to get HTML5 behind us, so that we can get to have this fun all
>> over again.
> 
> Exactly what many have been saying. The ball is in your court.
> 
> JF
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 06:55:05 UTC