Re: Suggestions for opening up PF

Hi Janina, thanks for the feedback.
responses inline

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

On 8 April 2015 at 15:49, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Steve:
>
> Thanks for your list of suggested improvements to PF's process.
>
>
> I believe all points you raise have been previously considered. They
> stand as they are because of previous group decisions. Clearly, we might
> have a different view now. So, it's reasonable to ask us to reconsider,
> and we will do that as a group.
>
> A few comments on particulars in line below ...
>
>
> Steven Faulkner writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I know some of these have been raised and are 'in process', but the
> process
> > appears to be moving slowly.
> >
> > The following are some suggestions that I think would provide easier
> > collaboration between the PF and other working groups and contributors at
> > the W3C. Note: these suggestions are personal and are not intended to
> > represent the views of my employer
> >
> > Public-PF mailing list [1]: allow non PF members to post to the list. We
> > have had situations in the past where members of the TAG (and other
> working
> > groups) have been unable to respond to technical discussion occuring on
> the
> > public PF list. This has lead to loss of technical input on important
> > accessibility related developments.
> >
> > PF issue tracker [2]: Allow anyone to read the issue tracker  if the work
> > of the group occurs in public space there is no need to have the issue
> > tracker in member only space. Anybody that is not a member of the PF who
> > wants to follow a particular issue cannot currently, this is an
> impedement
> > to collaboration and development.
> >
> > Recommend the primary method of public & inter WG comment be via bugs
> filed
> > on the various sepcifications, this makes tracking and responding to
> > technical issues raised easier for the people doing the technical work.
> >
> > WAI-liason list [3]: This list appears to consist primarliy of responses
> to
> > PF  comments on other WG specifications (which reside in the public
> space),
> > yet this list is in member only space, it does not make sense.
> This is not a PF list.
>

Regardless of whether it is officially owned by PF its sole traffic appears
to be PF tech review related. So suggest moving this traffic to a public
list.


>
> >
> > PF meeting minutes: remove the unecessary step of scrubbing the minutes
> and
> > only making them public after a preiod of time, it is in general a waste
> of
> > WG member and W3C staff time. If on the rare occasion the meetings cotain
> > sensitive information ask those at the meeting if they request an
> > opportunity to scrub prior to release.
> Whether or not the additional step is necessary is, of course, a matter
> of opinion. Let me point out that it was strongly requested by the
> participants of that teleconference when our charter was last reviewed
> because they felt it was an important safeguard.
>

As you say this is a time to revisit, I suggest a pf group w3c survey be a
good method to gauge current opinion.




>
> >
> > Move all specs produced by PF to the 2014 process [4]
> >
> > Take advantage of the new W3C publishing tools [5] that are being made
> > avialable, these tools can vastly reduce the amound of time spec editors
> > and w3c staff have to spend in producing working drafts.
> Already under consideration. See the pf-editor minutes.
>

good to hear.

>
> >
> > De-politicise the publication process, I have experienced on a number of
> > occasions, the situation where specs i work on have been held up due to
> > backroom wrangling even though there has been clear public member
> consensus
> > to publish. Heartbeat publications in particular should be as painless
> and
> > beurocracy free as possible, this will free up time for all involved.
> I must confess I don't understand this point,and I don't see it as
> actionable as currently presented. To my mind "political wrangling" is
> what we do when there are disagreements. The W3C is a polity, after all.
>

Concrete action: W3C staff as a policy should not attempt to override
member consensus decisions.



>
> Janina
>
> >
> > I am a PF member but largely work outside of the PF space because other
> > working groups allow me to get on with the technical work without undue
> > constraints.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/
> > [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/
> > [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/wai-liaison/
> > [4] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/
> > [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2015JanMar/0026.html
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>                         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>                 Email:  janina@rednote.net
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>         Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
>