- From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:57:13 +0200
- To: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
My 2 cents I do not like the members in good standing thing so much either. But I think that Joe is mixing two distinct issues. One is how and if we can adapt the members in good standing thing so that is acknowledges the work people are putting in. However there is a totally separate issue that I completely disagree with and that is the insinuation that went with the message. I normally do not respond to "attitude" in emails, but in this case, for the recorded I want to publicly disagree. I have seen W3C employees putting in a lot of time effort and thought, as to how to encourage more and diverse people to join the group, and participate. There may be ways to improved the plurality of the group. But, I there is no question in my mind that effort is genuine. Many years ago, I got pulled into the WCAG group by Wendy, precisely because I was somewhat different from the typical (involved in Learning disabilities and online tools and because I have learning disabilities myself). Other WCAG people encouraged my participation, precisely because my views and orientation to accessibility is different from what was typical to the group at the time. Since then I have seen Wendy actively looking for more people to participate who are "off the beaten track". My own experience has been (even when I strongly disagreed with directions in WCAG) that the W3C staff were always dedicate to trying to build consensus and incorporate as much new methodologies, information and techniques into WCAG as possible. Wendy is totally dedicated to making the web accessible. I am glad Wendy told me to sign up. I hope she does not regret it, too much... All the best Lisa Seeman Visit us at the UB Access website UB Access - Moving internet accessibility -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clark Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 8:41 PM To: WAI-GL Subject: Participation in good standing I want WAI (read well: WAI) to be very, very clear about what it truly means here: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0556.html> > Work statement [1]: focused mainly on membership requirements for our > task force. People need to be members in good standing of the larger > WCAG group but can focus their time commitment to techniques, or split > their time. The membership requirements seem to have been unilaterally upgraded overnight to read as follows: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/12/wttf.html> Participation Task Force participants must be participants in good standing of the WCAG WG, should have experience with a Web technology (such as HTML, CSS, or SVG), and must actively contribute to the work of the Task Force, including: * minimum 2 hours per week of Task Force work * remain current on the mailing list and respond in a timely manner to postings on mailing list * participate in Task Force telephone meetings, or send regrets to the list * assist in preparing Task Force deliverables for discussion Essentially, even to work on HTML techniques now requires one to be PiGS (participant in good standing). 1. That was not the case before. 2. Is that really and truly what the World Wide Web Consortium wishes to insist on now? Answer question 2 very carefully indeed. The Web Accessibility Initiative stands to permanently alienate contributors if it actually puts the proposal into practice. Perhaps I should add a third question: 3. Is that the result WAI actually intends? Public responses, to the list, *only*, please. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2003 05:57:42 UTC