- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:08:03 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, schwer@us.ibm.com, sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Hi Sam, >> Our proposal is real. > > I was unclear. I meant concrete technical proposals on specific features Lack of procedure as well as agreed upon principles is the elephant in the room that has been blocking that endeavor. > As a general rule, > it is best to start with an open discussion, on public-html. Starting with a > PROPOSAL with ten signatories is an anti-pattern, i.e., something to be > avoided. This is another new rule. A couple of months ago it was stated: "Meanwhile, please produce documents. Don't feel like you have to wait on Ian or anyone. Or better yet, collaborate on one or more of the existing documents. If any of these gets to the point where there are more than three independent contributors actively participating in the development of that document, we can explore making such a document a product of the Working Group. Initially, I would proceed with such a decision by a process the ASF calls Lazy Consensus, which means that if any member of the group objects, the matter would come to a formal W3C vote. At the present time, I'm dealing with Maciej's suggestion to resolve the one outstanding Formal Objection to the Design Principles document in exactly such a manner right now." [1] More that three independent contributors actively collaborated in an effort to strengthen the Accessibility Principle in the Design Principles document [2] but it was stated that process issues were not welcome there. [3] Hence the procedure document [4] was further effort at collaboration per your advice to produce documents. I have three questions: 1. Is the call for more editors collaborating to produce documents genuine or is it a thinly veiled attempt at something else? 2. What exactly is the procedure for how the HTML WG is to fulfill the Charter's mandate to "cooperate with the Web Accessibility Initiative to ensure that the deliverables will satisfy accessibility requirements"? 3. Who will determine if deliverables satisfy accessibility requirements? Best Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0169.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0661.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0249.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0556.html Past messages inquiring about official HTML WG procedures: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0145.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0232.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Feb/0010.html -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 17:08:46 UTC