- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:32:46 -0700
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, www-archive Archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>
(-public-html, +chairs) This seems to be morphing into a process discussion. Can we please take it off of public-html? Regards, Maciej On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> > wrote: >> Shelley Powers writes: >>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM, <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >>> Janina, you didn't respond on each individual item. >> >> Yes, it was our group decision to aggregate our response for our own >> convenience. That is true. Whether or not that is appropriate is >> certainly arguable. >> >> Please understand, though, that we did consider each of your >> proposals >> individually. Some we ruled out of scope for the TF. Where we had a >> concern, we discussed each separately, as I and others have pointed >> out. > > This is confusing, Janina. > > Your resolution rejected _all_ of the change proposals related to > removing elements, but you just wrote that some of these the group > felt were outside of the scope of the accessibility work group. If > this is true, if I understood correctly, then it was incorrect to > blanket reject all of the change proposals. > > I'm not sure if meeting minutes or emails outside of change proposals > and counter proposals count as effective rationales in the decision > process. I guess the co-chairs will have to decide that one. For > myself, no offense intended for the minute taker (I know how difficult > a task this is), I find the minutes too difficult to follow in order > to effectively respond except at a higher level. I'll do my best, but > I'm not sure, now, which of the elements you considered within the > province of the TF, and which you felt were out of scope. > >> >> Janina >> > > Shelley > > >>> >>> We shouldn't have to look through meeting minutes and emails in >>> order >>> to find responses in regards to each element. These were separate >>> change proposals. Because they happened at the same time should not >>> have impacted on how the group responded to these _individual_ >>> change >>> proposals. >>> >>> In particular, the group wasn't even interested in several of the >>> elements. From the discussion, the view on some seemed to be >>> indifferent, at best. That, to me, is not reflected in your >>> resolution. >>> >>> At a minimum, you could have posted about each of these items as a >>> separate poll item, and then allowed your group to voice their >>> interests over each, individually. >>> >>> Regardless, the only official response I see to this group on these >>> items is a single paragraph. That is the only item to which I can >>> respond. >>> >>> >>>> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 >>> >>> I also wish this discussion would happen in the HTML WG, because my >>> emails get blocked to the html-ally email group. >>> >>> Shelley >> >> -- >> >> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 >> sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net >> >> Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org >> Linux Foundation http://a11y.org >> >> Chair, Protocols & Formats >> Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf >> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:33:20 UTC