- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:50:43 -0700
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>, Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Mike Paciello <mpaciello@paciellogroup.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
> On Apr 9, 2015, at 10:54 , Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > > Janina Sajka writes: >> Hi Again, Steve: >> >> Steven Faulkner writes: >>> Hi Janina, as regards the use if WAI liaison list. it is certainly within the power of the PF to stop using the list for spec review comments. So an unclear as to your repeated assertions of it being out of PF control. >>> >> Please note that on https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/ it says >> "Records of what we have said to other groups are to be found in the >> wai-liaison@w3.org <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/wai-liaison/> >> list". >> >> >> BTW, this practice predates my decade plus participation in PF. >> >> Your observation that responses to our comments end up in wai-liaison, >> because people use "reply to all" when they respond, makes it seem it's >> a discussion list is indeed accurate, and not the best archiving >> practice. We will revisit how to maintain a cleaner archive of our >> formal comments and dispositive responses. >> >> However, please note wai-liaison is NOT PF's spec review discussion >> list. We only cc to that list when we've rechaed agreement on a comment >> that we're forwarding to another W3C group. >> > > Digging a bit further I have discovered that wai-liaison was originally > created primarily for PF to archive its communications to other W3C > groups. > > I'm currently thinking we have two requirements to satisfy with respect > to spec reviews when we reorganize PF's lists under the expected new WG > name, APA: > > 1.) An open list for discussion where anyone can participate. > > 2.) A publically readable list, but not publically writable, to > archive dispositive emails. > > The purpose of #1 is obvious, I think. > > The purpose of #2 is to make it easier to find a record of what was > formally decided in past discussions. This was the original purpose of > wai-liaison. > Thanks for external liaisons, we also have team-liaisons and member-archive-liaisons@w3.org. Maybe we simply need a general ‘within w3c’ liaisons (non-discussion) list. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 22:51:34 UTC