Re: Announcing the Public ARIA Comment Tracker

Ian Hickson writes:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> I assure you that I am not at all concerned that you are doing me wrong in 
> any way. I have the utmost confidence that you are acting in good faith 
> and have no doubt that you intend to and will in fact respond to all 
> comments, including mine.
Excellent. Glad to hear it.
> > > 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.
> Section 3.3.3 reads, in part:
> # The group's responsibility to respond to reviewers does not end once a 
> # reasonable amount of time has elapsed.
> This is all I was referring to.
> > > 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 we would ignore anything.
> In this e-mail:
> say "Any comments recieved after 24 June will be addressed only as 
> time allows", which is another way of saying that you might ignore 
> comments sent after that date.

We laid out our timeline, which I may add is far more generous than
process requires. Once again, we did not say "ignore." You did. The
assertion that that our phrase, "only as time allows," is "another way of saying" ignore is your
equivocation. Similarly, the desires and
intentions you 
ascribe to us:
_not_ want[ing] to respond to
feedback," "actively
announc[ing] that [we] intend to ignore substantial feedback," and
our supposed "intent to violate W3C
process" are all your conjectures. ...

> However, this is to me merely an academic concern and not one that I
> believe in any way affects me. I am not personally worried about this.
Whether academic or personal, you brought them up and continue to defend
them. I believe it is most proper for me to point out that these are
your inferences and your conjectures. If you believe you know what we in
PF may "want," or "intend," then it is surely reasonable to expect you
to have the courage of your convictions, and the intellectual honesty to
own them and own up to them as your own.

Surely, most reasonable people would not expect me to leave such
inflamatory assertions unchallenged, especially when you declaim them
first in public fora? What's the point of that? If you actually believe
this stuff, why didn't you first write me personally about it?


> -- 
> 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 12:51:15 UTC