Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

>> Either/Or. Either we continue these endless discussions, or we do the
>> work.  You asked for someone to take this on. I have expressed
>> willingness. I'm also willing to step aside if someone else from the
>> accessibility community wants to do this work. Or I'll work with
>> others, with the understanding that we're making this change in the
>> next couple of weeks, so this group can move on. Because we need to
>> move on.
> I agree that it is rubber meets the road time.
> My intent of +1 wasn't to suggest that there be only one option, but merely
> to agree that what Ian described was an option.  It was my intent to convey
> what Ian said in my *first* option, but clearly he said it better than I
> did.
> On Thursday's HTML WG call, a reasonable number of PFWG people attended.  On
> Friday morning I posted my opinion that "I don't wish to design and build
> the poll but I hope that my initial draft is enough to get this work
> moving." wasn't enough.  That was after seeing the reaction of people like
> yourself, Ian, Maciej, and Laura.  Since that time I have been in contact
> with a number of PFWG members, via IM and phone.  I believe that I have a
> good working relationship with them, and I do believe that they now have a
> good understanding of how to proceed, and that that understanding is
> basically what I outlined in my 5 (and now 6ish) options.
> The current state in Ian's current draft is that @summary is conformant but
> obsolete.  The proposed wording for a straw poll isn't complete.  I fully
> agree with Maciej's response[1].
> Shelley, you've come the closest I have seen to a coherent counter
> proposal[2].  I do mean that as a compliment, and I hope that you take it as
> such.
> Meanwhile, let me be quite clear: If you believe that you can work with Ian,
> please do so.  In fact, I will go further and say that that is my
> preference.  For many, that's all they need to do.

No, I cannot work with Ian. I'm not even going to indulge in a phony
pretense that I can.

> However, if you feel that the option of working with Ian has ceased to be
> productive, don't let that stop you.  In fact, I encourage you to directly
> make edits to one or more drafts based on the input you have heard and any
> opinions you might have.  Feel free to use the cvs facilities of the W3C.
>  If you would prefer something closer to the source that Ian edits, while I
> don't have access to the WHATWG SVN, I do have a full git clone[3] that you
> can pull from and merge and establish a branch etc.  It is up to date[4].
>  You can include Manu's work, or not, as you see fit.  We can vote on them
> together or separately, as people see fit.

I have made my proposition for a vote. If this option makes it to a
vote, and the group votes for it, I would be willing to make changes
to the document that incorporate what I wrote in the proposal, and
that also incorporates what William wrote, because the summary
attribute isn't explained well.

However, I have been told in a private email, which you received a
copy of Sam, that my offer to follow through on the edit, if consensus
was met, was just adding to noise, and not being helpful.

That this was throwing my offer of help back into my face was a given. Fine.

> From observation of you over the past several years, I don't believe that
> any of the above is beyond your abilities.  If you have any questions, feel
> free to contact me either publicly or privately (my preference is publicly,
> as it will benefit all, and limit the times I have to repeat myself).  But
> for those not as familiar with the Unix developers toolchain, simply
> directly make edits to a document (Ian's source, or the published w3c doc, I
> care not), and make available both the original that you edited and your
> updated copy, and I will either personally do the diffs and integration and
> publishing, or will find someone who will.

Though rusty with some of the technology, I could probably muddle my
way through. And I appreciate your offer of help. I think, though,
that my participation is actually making things worse. It's pretty
obvious by now, even before that email, that.

Time for me to move on, and let you folks do you thing. Again, I'll
help folks make edits. You don't have to be a member of the group to
help folks make edits.


Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 16:06:55 UTC