Re: Announcing the Public ARIA Comment Tracker

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > 
> > The way your comment was phrased it sounded like you thought you could 
> > set a cut-off date for receiving comments; I merely intended to 
> > indicate that this is not in fact permissible according to the W3C 
> > process.
> 
> Well, it would be too late were we to discover your missing comments 
> after the specs went to TR, wouldn't it? Certainly too late for v. 1.0.

My point was just that if someone sends a comment on a spec, regardless of 
when the comment is sent, the working group is required to respond to the 
comment before advancing the step to the next stage. Naturally, if the 
spec were to be in the "REC" stage, and the working group didn't think the 
comment was important, one option would be to simply not do anything. 
However, in general, whenever a document advances along the REC track, the 
working group is required to respond to all comments, whenever they were 
sent.


> Furthermore, I expect you would want more from us than that we just 
> receive your comments. If you'll also take into account:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/20090610153947.GE3371@sonata.rednote.net

This e-mail describes an intent to violate W3C process, which is very 
surprising. The working group is required by W3C process to respond to all 
feedback received prior to advancing to the next stage in the REC track, 
whether that means delaying such progress or not.

But again, why would a working group _not_ want to respond to feedback? It 
seems surprising to me to see a working group actively announce that it 
intends to ignore substantial feedback and to instead work to a timetable 
regardless of the quality of the document under question.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 23:52:27 UTC