- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:21:39 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, steve@w3.org, timbl@w3.org, jbrewer@w3.org, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 14:30 -0700, John Foliot wrote: >> Mr. Bratt, Mr. Berners-Lee, Ms. Brewer, Mr. Connolly, >> >> I am writing today regarding an issue that both shocks and profoundly >> disappoints me. While I understand that to a large extent there is little >> that can be done at this point, I personally feel that the issue I am >> referring to should be brought directly to your attention, as it indirectly >> affects the reputation and public position of the W3C. > [...] > > John, your complaint is acknowledged. > > Yes, accessibility is essential part of our charter... > http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#coordination > ... but figuring out how to achieve it is hard work. > > Organizing the W3C HTML WG as primarily a large mailing list is > somewhat risky; typically, W3C Working Groups establish mutual > trust and respect in face-to-face meetings and teleconferences > which results in more sensitivity than we are seeing in > the HTML WG mailing list and nearby forums such as IRC. > (The particular discussion you cite is in a WHATWG forum, > not a W3C forum, but I think that matters only a little.) Other standards organizations cope, and do so by having policies for dealing with situations such as these. For example: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3683.html http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3934.html http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4633.html I submit that if the W3C is not willing to establish and enforce similar policies that this noble experiment is openness may not produce the results you seek. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 18:39:56 UTC