I don't have any objection to you doing this, but I'd suggest that the process is simpler: 1) anyone can raise issues in tracker, 2) issues are only officially set to Closed (i.e. not "Pending Review") by a chair or staff contact. The granularity of issues so far seems to support this; if the number of issues increases dramatically, and it would make more sense for the specification editors to be able to close more minor issues, then I'd suggest a) editors can close issues, b) if a WG member disagrees with an editor's resolution, they can re-activate and request discussion by chairs (i.e. escalate to chairs for WG resolution.)
-Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Faulkner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 1:37 AM > To: Al Gilman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; www-archive; Michael(tm) Smith; > Chris Wilson > Cc: Ian Hickson; Laura Carlson; Joshue O Connor; Gregory J. Rosmaita > Subject: Clarification of process for raising html5 accessibility > related issues > > Over the past few weeks there has been discussion in the PF WG and the > HTML WG about how to best raise/open and track issues related to > accessibility features in HTML5 and if they are substantive [1] keep > them open until they are resolved by HTML WG decision rather than at > the discretion of the HTML5 editor. > > From my understanding of what has been agreed [2], such issues will be > added to the HTML Issue tracker [3] when they are raised. They then > will remain open until they are resolved. > > How does an issue get on the tracker? > This appears to be largely at the discretion of the chairs, unless the > issue is raised by a request from other WGs. > > So how is a HTML WG member to go about getting an issue on the tracker? > > I would suggest this process: > > 1. Raise an issue/proposal on the HTML WG mailing list or Bug tracker > 2. If it there is no response from the HTML5 editor after a reasonable > period of time or dismissed by the HTML5 editor and the HTML WG > member(s) involved think it has not been dealt with in a manner that > takes into account implications for accessibility, (for example, a > decision puts the needs of browser vendors before the needs of people > with disabilities), then email the PF WG for advice on the matter. > 3. the PF WG will consider the matter, if they think it is a > substantive issue that needs further consideration, a formal request > will be sent to the HTML WG. > > > [1] substantive issues include those that are likely to be the basis > of formal objections at last call or have been formally raised by > other working groups such as the PF WG. > [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-html-wg-minutes.html > [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/ > > > -- > with regards > > Steve Faulkner > Technical Director - TPG Europe > Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium > > www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org > Web Accessibility Toolbar - > http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
