Re: Announcing the Public ARIA Comment Tracker

Ian Hickson writes:
> 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.

I see the following paragraph at:

" Reviewers SHOULD NOT send substantive technical reviews late on the
Recommendation track. Reviewers SHOULD NOT expect that a Working Group
will readily make substantive changes to a mature document. The more
evidence a Working Group can show of wide review, the less weight
substantive comments will carry when provided late on the Recommendation
Track. Worthy ideas SHOULD BE recorded even when not incorporated into a
mature document."

This paragraph, and others at the URI, read quite differently for me
from what I hear you asserting in this email exchange.

> > Furthermore, I expect you would want more from us than that we just 
> > receive your comments. If you'll also take into account:
> > 
> >
> 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.

I return to my original statement. I wrote it intending to convey my joy
that our public tracker helped you point out that your comments had been
missed. I also told you we would track down how those comments had been
missed. That's what I meant to say, and that's what I believe I did say.
I am quite astonished that you find anything different in my statement.
Be that as it may, your comments will be addressed by the wg on their

> 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.
I don't see that at all. I don't see us saying  wwe would ignore anything. We laid out how we would take
up comments, and we laid out our rationale for so doing.

Still it seems I'm missing something in what you write. It seems to me
you are most concerned that we are doing wrong, and especially that we
are doing you wrong somehow. Is there something else you need to come
forth with? What's the real problem here?


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


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.202.595.7777;
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC	http://CapitalAccessibility.Com

Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada
Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com

Chair, Open Accessibility	
Linux Foundation

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 00:40:28 UTC