updated charter (was Re: agenda for 23 December telecon)

I have updated the charter [1] based on comments received as of today.

changes include those inspired by william (listed below) as well as:
1.  in section 10 separated "disability experts" into "research community" 
and "disability community."
2.  in section 10 removed "liaison" from all but "developer community" and 
qualified that the liaisons are to other W3C groups.
3. in the mission, instead of producing a "new version of" we will produce 
a "revised" WCAG.
4. in the schedule, deleted the reference to the first face to face 
occurring after CSUN
5. in the mission, changed "to document accessible authoring practices" to 
"to document accessible techniques"
6.  in the mission, the revised guidelines are listed first rather than the 
techniques.

William, I have a couple comments about your comments that we didn't 
address on the call today:

At 09:25 AM 12/23/99 , William Loughborough wrote:
>I think the "Mission Statement" should say something like: "The WCAG are
>the cornerstone of the WAI effort and provide the basis on which all the
>other Recommendations depend: AU, UA, and ER." although it's heavily
>addressed in section 9, might deserve up-frontness?

hmm. what do other people think?  i don't think this is necessary, but if 
people feel strongly about it we can add it.

>2.2 "documented in the Techniques document" might enjoy a better verb.

how about "addressed?"

>4 Deliverables #s 3 and 4 are implicitly contained or necessary for #2
>to have happened so might be better included in #2.

i agree with 3 (checkpoint list).  i do not agree with 4 (techniques document).
3 because it is a derivative work of the guidelines.  the techniques 
document is not derived from the guidelines.

>Still think 5 is UA job - let's avoid a "jurisdictional dispute"?

we discussed this on the call.

>8 might also be considered an integral/indespensible part of 2?

minutes are part of the process, however they do require an amount of 
effort therefore are highlighted.

>7. Schedule has "Working Drafts are available to the public, but a call
>for public review has not been issued." something grammatically grating?

how about:
Working Drafts should be published at least on a monthly basis. Working 
Drafts are available to the public, but have not been reviewed by the WAI 
Interest Group and are not published on the W3C Technical Reports page. In 
a sense these are "Internal" Working Drafts.
Public Working Drafts should be published at least every three months (per 
the Release Policy). These differ from Internal Working Drafts in that they 
have been reviewed by the WAI Interest Group and are published on the W3C 
Technical Reports page.

>9.1 "Once PF has identified or worked through an accessibility barrier
>with a group, we need to update our deliverables as accordingly."
>grammar?

how about:
Once PF has identified or worked through an accessibility barrier with a 
specification, we should reflect the new information in our deliverables.

thanks,
--wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/new-charter-2000.html

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Thursday, 23 December 1999 18:25:27 UTC