Re: PROPOSAL: Procedure to Promote Progress With Accessibility Issues in HTML5

Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>> These options [1] are available to every member of the HTML Working Group.
>> Many members of WAI are members of the HTML Working Group.  Those that
>> are not currently members but are interested in exercising the above
>> options are also encouraged to join.
>> All of these exist as possibilities and many are actively being used.
> Yes they are. But none are articulated officially in a single
> procedural document. There are  few emails scattered here and there
> but the HTML Working Group has no document in place.

> The proposal would be a document to point to to say,  "This is how we
> are working with WAI". "This is how we are fulfilling the Charter’s
> mandate to cooperate with the Web Accessibility Initiative to ensure
> that the deliverables will satisfy accessibility requirements".

Instead, what was sent was a thinly veiled complaint that the editor 
doesn't participate in phone calls.

>>> All interested parties, in particular HTML WG editors, are encouraged
>>> to make use of these collaboration tools and opportunities.
>> I am particularly puzzled by the stance "we don't make formal replies to
>> individuals" and "in particular HTML WG editors...are encouraged to make
>> use of [WAI XTECH Mailing List and HTML WG Teleconferences]".
> Exactly. That is one conflict that this proposal would hope to resolve.

Lets start small, and follow this:

> It is also an attempt to:
> - Help *everyone* be aware of what is available
> - Standardize operations
> - Provide clarity and consistency
> - Encourage stability and continuity in operations
> - Stabilize action despite top-level changes (We have had *four*
> different Chairs in two years.)
> - Help avoid future conflict

During that period, has remained remarkably 

> But most of all, an official procedure would provide guidance and
> demonstrate that the working group has indeed thought about this and
> is trying its level best to fulfill the Charter’s accessibility
> mandate.

Again, instead of debating about changing the process, lets try 
following it:

In my previous reply, I cross-checked the signatories against the HTML 
Working Group membership.  My conclusion is that a pretty good job has 
been done in this regard.

My suggestion is that everbody focus on filling public-html (and 
wai-xtech and the teleconferences) with actual concrete proposals.

> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

Received on Sunday, 19 July 2009 19:34:29 UTC