W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Clarifying the TAG

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:24:56 -0400
Message-ID: <3B589398.6C3BAEC8@w3.org>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Many thanks for your response, Ian. As I have said the W3C has
> made a great step with TAG and I'm glad it is where it is.
> On Thursday, July 19, 2001, at 04:01  PM, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> >>> W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative and Internationalization
> >>> Activity are already producing Architectural Recommendations in
> >>> the areas of accessibility and internationalization,
> >>> respectively.
> >> Can you elaborate more on how their relationship with the TAG?
> > Like the TAG, they are producing Architectural Recommendations.
> > The TAG is not the only body within W3C to be doing so. And
> > there are bodies outside W3C doing so as well. This paragraph
> > is here to show that the TAG does not "control" Web Architecture.
> Do you think there will be an official liason between the groups?

Lots of "informal" liaisons go on within the Team; we're at least
good for that. :)

I don't know that we have an "official liaison" status, but it's
in everyone's interest to pay attention to the work of others.

> >>> Issues may be brought to the TAG by a variety of parties:
> >>> Working Groups, the public, the W3C Team, as part of an appeal
> >>> to the W3C Director, the TAG itself, etc.
> >> Why not just say "Anyone may bring an issue to the TAG"? As
> >> written, it implies that W3C Members are not allowed to raise
> >> issues, since they aren't members of the "public".
> > No, that's not implied. This is a list that includes some
> > examples, but also "etc.". The parties in the list
> > are noteworthy, but don't exclude Members.
> So is there anyone who cannot bring an issue to the TAG?

I think basically anyone can. We could have said "Anyone can
bring an issue to the TAG," but we chose to phrase it instead
as "issues may come from a variety of places."

Like other WGs, the TAG must address all substantial issues, provide
formal responses, etc., no matter the origin.
> >>> The TAG is expected to evolve with experience, and its charter
> >>> may be revised as its role and W3C change. The Director must
> >>> propose any non-editorial changes to the TAG charter for a
> >>> four-week review by the Advisory Committee. After the end of
> >>> the review, the Director must announce the new charter to the
> >>> Advisory Committee.
> >> The public should be able to propose changes to and have to
> >> ratify the TAG charter. See the discussion of voting.
> > Anyone can propose anything at any time. Good ideas will be
> > retained. But there are benefits to Membership. Are you
> > suggesting that we eliminate the Proposed Recommendation
> > review as well? We could. But we might not have any Members
> > left....
> No, I'm not suggesting any such thing. Having more eyes looking
> over Proposed Recommendation is probably a good thing. But even
> if you did get rid of it, I think you'd still have quite a few
> members left. Something tells me that people don't join so that
> they can vote down specs.
> >>> The deliverables of the TAG are its Architectural
> >>> Recommendations, review reports, and issue resolutions. The TAG
> >>> may publish a variety of materials (e.g., short-term
> >>> resolutions to issues that arise)...
> >> These resolutions must all be public and really should be
> >> publicly appealable.
> Will these resolutions be public?

[Yes, that was already in my comment.]

Thanks again,

 _ Ian

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 20 July 2001 16:26:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:48 UTC