- From: Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru>
- Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 16:08:49 +1000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Again, this is ascribing motives to individuals and making specific assertions about what they will do based on those motives. That is not reasonable behaviour. As Patrick pointed out, a vast amount of work done over the 24-year existence of WAI was done by private companies, or organisations funded by investment money, or individuals looking to be paid by someone. Investors can choose whatever reason, or combination of reasons, to put money into an organisation. Completely hypothetically (I neither know nor care about the specific details of this case), it is entirely possible that the series A money came from some organisation whose mission is to improve accessibility, and a condition of the funding is participation in W3C and demonstrating an improvement in the effectiveness of their work specifically to counter the current stream of bad-mouthing that many in the accessibility community raise against them, by actually answering the complaints with improvements. It is quite reasonable to point out things that don't work as advertised, or why a certain solution they develop fails to meet a certain requirement. It is reasonable in turn to question whether that requirement still makes sense. The point is to reach consensus on the answers to such questions. We have been doing that in WAI for 20-odd years, and should continue. cheers Chaals On Sat, 29 May 2021 01:56:00 +1000, Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk> wrote: > Their investors expect the company to maximise the return on their > investment and won’t want anything to get in the way of that, >even if > it makes the world better. -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Saturday, 29 May 2021 06:09:17 UTC