Re: 19 March 2001 UAAG 1.0 Guidelines and Techniques available

"gregory j. rosmaita" wrote:
> 
> b) it is not my intention to delay UAAG in any way, shape, or form, but it
> is my obligation to stand by the longstanding objections which have been
> logged, minuted, and archived...  why?  because they aren't simply my
> objections, based on conjecture or personal prejudice, but reflect the
> experiences, frustrations, needs, and desires of the constituency i
> titularly represent (which, for the record, is the Visually Impaired
> Computer Users' Group of New York City, also known as VICUG NYC), as well as
> anyone and everyone who has ever contacted me via the VICUG NYC site--or any
> of my other web sites, or in response or reaction to a post on a mailing
> list--asking for assistance or seeking an explanation of exactly what it is
> that has been reducing them to roadkill on the information superhighway...

Gregory,

The W3C Process is designed so that anyone may request that
their objections be carried forward to the Director for review.
You are obviously welcome to register your objections as we
move the document to last call. It even seems very reasonable
that a thorough review of the document after so many changes
would lead anyone to raise some issues (this has happened to 
me a number of times). 

However, I personally do not want to spend any more
time debating the priorities of the checkpoints in question.
We did that a year ago. I personally do not wish to take any
more WG time to discuss these priority questions without
substantial new evidence.

We really must move on.

 - Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 19:44:45 UTC