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

RE: Issue 30 (Was: RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:06:51 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E296AB3@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
> wrote:
> >> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> > [...]
> >>>
> >>> I am still new to the group and trying to get a handle on the
> >>> process overall.
> >>>
> >>> In this proposed draft plan can the a11y TF simply take the authored
> >>> CP to re-instate longdesc and call it an extension spec? I assume
> >>> format changes would be required, but I thought the heavy lift had
> >>> been done to define it.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> > [...]
> >
> > After some time doing other things (ok, deciding on lunch) another idea
> occurred to me...
> >
> > This Plan 2014 document is just a proposal and it's up for discussion now
> with an indeterminate agreement date.
> >
> > Can we just move ahead on the issue 30 survey? If that was the last step to
> > resolving it, it might close (one way or the other) one of the 10 remaining
> > open items for moving HTML5 along-- the only item that has a date on it and
> > which has also passed.
> The Chairs expect that a decision in favor of any ISSUE-30 Change Proposal is
> likely to lead to a Formal Objection. We believe the approach outlined in the
> plan may be able to avoid a Formal Objection. This will save time on net, if we
> can get everyone's buy-in. We also think treating the remaining issues
> equally is important to getting people to agree with this approach for their
> own pet issues, which is why we did not suggest singling any out for different
> treatment.

I'm not buying into that for three reasons:

1. This proposed process is just a discussion, it may not pan out or it may go differently, but all other activity appears to be coming to a halt. I don't see any reason why anything should come to a halt when there is no deliverable date for this new process. If the current process is fundamentally and demonstrably broken then I'd reconsider (which then calls into question all other related processes).

2. Not acting because there *may* be a Formal Objection isn't a reason. Granted, I don't know the players, who might object or how complex that process is. If I tell a client I'm not going to follow the agreed scope of work (the existing committed process and deadline, in this analogy) because he or she may object, I'd expect to be fired. I'd continue to move ahead and follow the expectations that have already been set. A Formal Objection will be dealt with, but at least there will be *movement*.

3. The remaining issues are equally important. I also happen to see a deadline on this CP [1] when none of the others have one, which implies to me that it *should* be treated differently (it already is different). So don't single it out, just follow through on the commitment already made to it. *Not* following through (and allowing the missed deadline to continue to get older) means that this issue is, in fact, being singled out for different treatment (to use your words).

1. http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 18:07:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC