(-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 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Shelley Powers writes:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM, <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]
Chair, Open Accessibility [email protected]
Linux Foundation http://a11y.org
Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
