- From: Jason Kiss <jason@accessibleculture.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:37:48 +1300
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Thanks for the clarification, Michael. +1 Jason Kiss > On 8/12/2015, at 04:27, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote: > > I think I need to clarify the proposal that this CfC seeks to ratify, as in the discussion it seems to have been confused with a different approach. > > The proposal in this CfC is that anybody can join the list, *but* they have to first affirm that they accept the conditions around good behavior and intellectual property. This was called "moderated subscription", or could be called "manual subscription". > > Other discussion in this thread has focused on "moderated posting", in which posts from non-subscribers must be approved. That is *not* the proposal in this CfC, and I think would be unworkable for a number of reasons, some of which were raised on the thread. I can list them if needed, but I think it's distraction to go into that, since it's not even the proposal. > > Others have advocated a completely automated self-subscribe with no pre-checks (possibly with a post hoc sending of expectations), which is also not the proposal in this CfC. That approach also has a lot of problems which I have explained elsewhere, notwithstanding the fact that several WGs have chosen to adopt that approach. > > If you believe only automated self-subscribe is acceptable, and do not support manual subscription, you should vote against this CfC. However, there is enough concern about the challenges brought about by automated self-subscription that automated self-subscribe is unlikely to gain consensus either. This CfC is for a compromise proposal that allows open joining but adds a manual confirmation step. If this compromise fails, we could be left with the current situation, which is that people who do not join the WG cannot subscribe to the mailing list. > > Michael > >> On 06/12/2015 10:39 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote: >>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 05:02:38 +1000, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> The entirety of the CSS WG discussions happens on www-style. It’s fully open with members and non-members. >>> >>> We’re trying to be inclusive and lower the barrier to entry, aren’t we? >>> >>> Just put the list behavior expectations on the join page, or in the join auto-response email. >> >> +1 >> >> Having to moderate before things get through leads to frustration. Telling people off for doing the wrong thing is a rare enough occurrence that it seems to work. >> >> It is true that we want people to accept the terms of W3C's policies - which are not RAND but royalty-free patent licensing for recommendations - but that can be done effectively through the challenge/response mechanism for autosubscribe just as well as with a moderator in the middle. >> >> cheers >> >>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> James Craig writes: >>>>> You could also make the list fully open to join and post. Lowest overhead. >>>>> >>>>> Then then only duty is to remove members that engage in disrespectful or unproductive communication. >>>> But, then there's no record that they've been advised up front of what's >>>> expected of them. >>>> >>>> And, what about the RAND that all members agree to when joining. Just >>>> blow it off? Not acceptable. >>>> >>>> Janina >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I would be OK with moderating nonmember posts. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with moderating, of course, is that someone has to be tasked >>>>>> with that chore. And, that someone needs a backup person when they're on >>>>>> vacation, or sick, etc. And, we can't expect them to clear (or deny) >>>>>> posts by the minute --- so how often would we expect such to occur? >>>>>> Daily? Weekly? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you review the minutes from yesterday's ARIA call, you'll find the >>>>>> discussion was concerned to make it as easy as possible to participate >>>>>> in ARIA development. However, "easy as possible" needs to meet certain >>>>>> commitments, and we need those commitments on record. These include the >>>>>> good behavior and agreement to W3C RAND. >>>>>> >>>>>> PS: The HTML-A11Y Task Force is moderating nonmember posts. It's been a >>>>>> low incidence chore, fortunately. >>>>>> >>>>>> Janina >>>>>> >>>>>> James Craig writes: >>>>>>> Is there an option to allow public read, but moderated posting? If so, I'd prefer that solution. If not, +1 as-is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The resolution of the teleconference was to adopt a policy that public >>>>>>>> subscription to the list will be allowed, but it will be carried out via >>>>>>>> a manual process, rather than automatic self-subscribe. A request to >>>>>>>> subscribe would be directed to the staff contact, who would reply with a >>>>>>>> short set of commitments asked of list subscribers, and upon receiving >>>>>>>> an affirmative reply, would subscribe the person. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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 > >
Received on Monday, 7 December 2015 18:38:35 UTC