W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg@w3.org > September 2013

Re: PF Rejects TF's Work/Consensus CFC [Was: Call for Consensus: Procedure updates]

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:46:51 +0200
To: "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-ID: <op.w3w7k0gwy3oazb@chaals.local>
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 03:50:20 +0100, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>  
wrote:

> After more than a month when we have been unable to get the three TF
> facilitators into a discussion, we were able to make progress on this
> item at the TF Facilitators call Monday. We expect to have language that
> we believe will be acceptable to PF, and we hope to the HTML-WG as well,
> in a few days. Of course it will need to be approved first in the TF.

Yeah, I need ten minutes to edit the document and propose it. Then a week  
for it to be accepted, and then hopefully we turn it over to you and PF  
and we're all happy this time.

cheers

> Janina
>
> Paul Cotton writes:
>> What is the status of this CfC?  I cannot find any record of this being  
>> resolved.
>>
>> The HTML WG CfC on this item has been on hold since Aug 8:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Aug/0014.html
>>
>> /paulc
>> HTML WG co-chair
>>
>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:53 AM
>> To: Charles McCathie Nevile
>> Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
>> Subject: Re: PF Rejects TF's Work/Consensus CFC [Was: Call for  
>> Consensus: Procedure updates]
>>
>> Charles:
>>
>> Responding with my best effort at TF Facilitator hat off, and PF Chair  
>> hat on ...
>>
>> As PF has not further discussed this topic, my comments represent my  
>> sense of PF's viewpoint. Also, please note that PF does not meet again  
>> until 4 September.
>>
>> Remaining comments in line below ...
>>
>>
>> Charles Nevile writes:
>> > Dear PF group,
>> >
>> > This is an explanation followed by a request for comment, since moving
>> > forward without understanding what the PF group will or won't object
>> > to seems like a waste of everyone's time...
>> >
>> > On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:41:12 +0400, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Colleagues:
>> > >
>> > >The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group considered approval of
>> > >the HTML-A11Y Task Force CFC referenced below during its regular
>> > >teleconference on 7 August. Discussion of this item during the PF
>> > >teleconference is logged at:
>> > >
>> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Aug/0014.html
>> > >
>> > >In addition a CFC for the PFWG on this question was posted at:
>> > >
>> > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2013Aug/0011.html
>> > >
>> > >Disposition:
>> > >
>> > >The PFWG does not agree to the Work Statement and Consensus Policy as
>> > >submitted.
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > >PF notes that the role of teleconferences in the HTML-A11Y Task Force
>> > >is not discussed in these documents. Specifically, the role of
>> > >resolutions, actions and comments logged during teleconference
>> > >discussions is not explained as these do, or do not pertain to  
>> reaching TF consensus.
>> > >
>> > >*	PF notes that the TF's two sponsoring organizations, the PFWG
>> > >*	and the HTML-WG have different expectations and policies
>> > >*	regarding teleconferences with respect to achieving WG
>> > >consensus. For this reason alone PF believes the role of
>> > >teleconferences in TF deliberations should be explictly described.
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > >*	PF further notes that TF teleconferences have customarily
>> > >*	formally logged resolutions following teleconference discussion
>> > >*	whenever a documented consensus position of the TF was desired.
>> > >*	These resolutions were, in turn, also confirmed either by email
>> > >*	CFC or WBS survey. This has been TF practice since the TF's
>> > >*	inception. PF believes the TF's intention in this regard going
>> > >*	forward should be explicitly stated.
>> >
>> > The policy states that resolutions will be reached by a call for
>> > consensus on email. Which means that a teleconference is not
>> > sufficient to produce a formal resolution.
>> >
>> I believe our understanding is that it has never been sufficient. I  
>> don't believe we're asking for a change in that respect.
>>
>> > There is no reason not to start a Call for Consensus based on a
>> > proposal made in a teleconference.
>>
>> OK, but this is not documented in the proposed Decision Policy.
>>
>> > While the TF may have made
>> > resolutions in teleconferences and confirmed them via CfC, this is not
>> > actually in line with the original decision policy, which required a
>> > teleconference to adopt a draft resolution after it had been made
>> > available, but still required a subsequent call for consensus as
>> > proposed in the current document.
>> >
>> It is indeed the case that not all resolutions adopted by TF  
>> teleconferences in the past were preceded by draft resolutions conveyed  
>> by email, it is also not true that teleconference resolutions never  
>> followed email or WBS canvasing. In fact, on some more strongly  
>> contested points the teleconference only confirmed and voted a  
>> resolution following on email or WBS surveys.
>>
>> I believe the main concern for PF here is that it be explicitly  
>> acknowledged that issues on which a formal consensus is developed  
>> include the opportunity for people to discuss the issue directly with  
>> one another via teleconference, or in face to face meeting, if such is  
>> scheduled while a consensus is being formally sought and articulated.
>>
>> In other words, I believe PF would not want to see the TF declare a  
>> consensus without having calendered the issue in question as an agendum  
>> for a teleconference or face to face discussion as part of the CFC  
>> process.
>>
>> I don't believe PF has any concern as to how the CFC is initiated,  
>> whether in a teleconference or not.
>>
>> > >*	Without explicit statements regarding the role of the
>> > >*	teleconference in TF decisioning, it is unclear to PF whether
>> > >*	objections, and other comments logged during teleconferences,
>> > >*	are to be regarded as comments on a CFC.
>> >
>> > Comments logged in minutes sent to the mailing list are formal
>> > comments to the TF, and therefore where relevant to a CfC are formal
>> > comments on that CfC.
>> >
>> > I will add a note to this effect in the document we propose.
>> >
>>
>> Still with PF hat on, I don't believe PF has a position on this one way  
>> or the other. However, resuming my TF hat, I don't believe there's yet  
>> a clear consensus on this in the TF.
>>
>> And, if there's going to be provision for including comments captured  
>> by a scribe during teleconference meetings, it will then be necessary  
>> to clearly state how edits are to be made and approved. Does the TF  
>> want that level of formalism in its "draft" minutes?
>>
>>
>> > >The PF requests the TF to add appropriate language to explain the
>> > >role of its teleconferences in its decisioning process with specific
>> > >reference to the above points.
>> >
>> > Please respond explaining whether we need to explicitly say that
>> > teleconferences, face to face meetings (and other gatherings or
>> > processes apart from the web-based survey or call directly to the
>> > mailing list) do not have the power to make binding resolutions, or
>> > whether the document is clear enough as is.
>> >
>>
>> Back to PF hat ...
>>
>> Hopefully, my comments above will help. But, to restate ...
>>
>> PF would be unlikely to agree that binding resolutions could be  
>> conducted with consideration during a teleconference or face to face  
>> meeting. in other words, PF is objecting to the possibility that a  
>> binding resolution could be made exclusively by email or WBS.
>>
>> Janina
>>
>>
>> > >Janina Sajka, Chair
>> > >Protocols and Formats WG
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Charles Nevile writes:
>> > >>On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:29:03 +0400, Charles McCathie Nevile
>> > >><chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>This is a call for consensus on the proposal
>> > >>>
>> > >>>The Task Force wishes to adopt the work statement at
>> > >>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-tf-draft.html and the decision-making
>> > >>>procedures proposed at
>> > >>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Jun/att-00
>> > >>>85/consensus-procedures.html
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Silence will be taken as assent, but positive responses are
>> > >>>preferred. Please reply before midnight in the last time zone, on
>> > >>>Monday July 29.
>> > >>
>> > >>This call has passed. We will therefore move through the processof
>> > >>adopting the new procedures.
>> > >>
>> > >>cheers
>> > >>
>> > >>Chaals
>> > >>
>> > >>--
>> > >>Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office,  
>> Yandex
>> > >>      chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office,  
>> Yandex
>> >       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
>>
>> --
>>
>> Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
>> 			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>> 		Email:	janina@rednote.net
>>
>> Linux Foundation Fellow
>> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
>>
>> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>> Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>> 	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 23:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:26 UTC