W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-cc@w3.org > September 2016

On HTML AAM deliverable

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:37:10 -0400
To: public-wai-cc@w3.org
Message-ID: <96c148bb-2041-2025-6e3f-a0b5a6d4b321@w3.org>
jb: Is there an update?

rs: Will discuss again on Thursday's ARIA call
... Most people seem to be OK with giving Web Platforms exclusive 
... Except that we do need adequate review time
... So, we're trying to figure that out. How much time ahead of CR 
publication, for instance
... Generally, people work on the doc and don't worry about ownership
... Any group could lose people and then the doc loses staff

mc: Not sure the editors care either way, either that we leave it as is, 
or that we move it over
... Don't believe the joint status has imposed any burden
... Actually the proposed review time is greater than what we currently have
... I'm confident in current staffing on this doc, just worried about 
the future
... If there's no problem today, why remove our buffer?

jb: Noting current status is joint, and PLH recommending keep it that 
way for now

rs: Can PLH send an email to that effect?


I left it as a joint deliverable in the proposed Web Platform Working 
Group in order to get the charter out to AC review sooner rather than 
later. I didn't want to hold the entire charter review on this issue.

The deliverable should be associated with the group(s) actually working 
on the document. This means that the chair(s) and team contact(s) for 
those groups are accountable for the progress of the deliverable.

Having a deliverable listed in a charter for the only purpose of 
ensuring proper review is not the approach I'd like to push forward in 
the future. We ought to do better than that when it comes down to wide 
reviews. Listing a deliverable in a charter carries patent commitments 
and call for exclusions, publication requirements, ties it to 2 group 
decision policies, etc. We must not do reviews at the last minute (cf 
recent i18n alarms) and any group is welcome to push back on a 
transition if they don't believe they received enough reasonable time to 

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2016 12:37:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:52:06 UTC