Re: Process quibble Re: Joint meeting ... on ... aria issues

Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review  Board
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer

wai-xtech-request@w3.org wrote on 10/17/2007 01:25:38 PM:

>
>
> On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 19:39 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > Hi Rich,
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:26:00 +0200, Richard Schwerdtfeger
> > <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If it were publicly available (HTML, XHTML, SVG) we could potentially

> > > have 100 people on the call. As it was it was a challenge to minute
> > > this. I do not want to manage a call of that size and we need to get
> > > things moving forward.
> >
> > While I appreaciate the issue if 100 people *do* turn up, I think that
it
> > is counter to the agreement under which the public groups work to set
up a
> > private meeting with your chosen set of participants.
> >
> > There is a precedent for each group selecting people to represent it
(e.g.
> > Forms task force) which is much more in line with W3C process. It can
take
> > a little longer to set up, but it should resolve problems like half a
> > group feeling they are unrepresented ...
>
> Your point is well made, Charles.
>
> Meanwhile, I happened to hear about this meeting a day or so before it
> happened. I knew it didn't follow W3C process for open meetings
> (7 days notice for teleconferences), but I chose not to put a stop
> to it. I checked with Al Gilman to see if he was OK with it, and he was.
>
> So I think a joint task force and such might be a good idea; meanwhile,
> the time seems right for people to get together and talk about this,
> so I didn't think it was in the best interest of the community overall
> to stop the meeting. After all, I couldn't really do that; all I could
> do is get W3C staff to not attend, which would make the odds of public
> records even lower.
>
Dan, I think this joint task force idea is a bad idea. We have adequate
representation from each of the groups. We have been working on ARIA for
a long time. I believe we have adequate people, as adults, working on how,
best to get aria across the different markups. What you are proposing could
take months based on previous work in the W3C. People need access
yesterday.

My fault is not publishing int more to the open community. That is my
fault.

... but lets' not put any unneeded process around this.


> As Richard says, "This is not to say that we have agreement from ANY of
> the working groups - just that we had a discussion and tried to come to
> a common proposal."
>
> I'm in touch with Al Gilman about face-to-face time during the
> upcoming Tech Plenary.
>
> And I'm happy to put this on tomorrow's HTML WG teleconference agenda.
>
> [...]
> > When working outside W3C process like this, I am very glad that you
took
> > minutes and posted them to the relevant groups. That's vastly superior
to
> > just editing a spec in such a way that the group does not know where
the
> > change came from or why.
> >
> > So thank you for doing that.
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>