[Accessibility] Accessibility draft notes 050309

john goldthwaite jgoldthwaite at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 9 12:36:51 PST 2005


Accessibility Workgroup meeting     March 9, 2005
Gunnar Schmidt
Bill Haneman
Matthew Wilcox
Janina Sajka
John Goldthwaite
George Kraft
Pete Brunet
Larry Weiss
Doug Beatty
Andreas Gonzales – Adobe
Earl Johnson
Sandy Gabrielli


Minutes approved.

George - FSG elections- I’ve posted the LSB election
procedures but there has been no discussion on the
list.  The proposal is to use the LSB procedure for
our election.  We form an ad hoc election committee to
come up with nominations for chair producing a list of
candidates.  The list would be posted at least 30 days
before the election.  Eligibility is based on a point
system with points earned for code contribution, cvs,
specification, attending meetings and participation in
conference calls.  Points are totaled, need x points
to be an active member.   After the election committee
has posted candidates list, send in ballots to
election committee.  The committee validates each
person 

Janina- how do you get points since we do not have any
CVS activity?
George- you get points for face to face meeting,
weekly teleconference and subgroup teleconferences.
Two points for a conference call up to 18,  email – 1
point , max 10 in 6 months,  face to face 4 points,
code 4 points each for max of 16 in a 6 month period. 
 
Doug- if not able to attend does calling in also count
for the face to face?
George- Yes

2 points for teleconf. calls up to 18 in a 6 month
period
4 points for face to face up to x in 18 months
4 points for CVS post up to max 16 in 6 month period
1 point for email up to max 10 in six months

Bill- it’s not obvious to me that we need a
quantitative method for certification.  We could have
– post that closing date for voting membership is x. 
If we decide on a date, it doesn’t make sense for
someone who hasn’t participated to date to be able to
vote.
Doug- this gives the elections committee criteria for
not counting a vote.
Janina- Bill, you are saying that the election
committee can come up with a list of who is eligible
to vote.
George- that’s very subjective
Bill- it doesn’t matter that it is subjective.
George – we came up with this because there were 600
people on LSB discuss and many were not making
contributions.
Bill- we might need to evolve to something like that. 
I don’t think subjectivity is bad in our case.  In LSB
there are enough stakeholders with different
viewpoints that a quantitative method is necessary.  
We shouldn’t need that yet.
Janina-  
Bill- we tell you in advance that you are eligible to
vote.  New people would have to ask to be added to the
list and the committee could review the request.  I’m
just suggesting this because it will make things
easier and still be defensible.  There are people who
we might want to vote but don’t meet the criteria.
George – there is an exception method for the
committee to allow voting for contributors who are
short a few points.
Doug- it’s a procedure that we have used and it has
worked.  It gives the committee a process that can be
defended.
Janina- we need a process that is comfortable for us. 


Sandy- I like having something that is very clear that
defines participation.  We need to have a procedure
that is clear so people can know what they need to do.
  I’m more in favor of quantifying participation
rather than subjective judgments.
Janina- we want people who are substantively involved
on the phone calls and the face to face. 
Sandy- we need to decide on the rules and publish them
well ahead of the election so that people could have
sufficient time participate in enough activities to be
eligible to vote.
Janina- When we elected officer we said we would make
it for a year or two and we’ve gone over that for
various reasons.  Would like to get a process in place
to have regular elections and provide continuity so
people would know there are regular procedures.  Isn’t
it useful to have some sort of normative process for
voting?
Sandy- I think having it well defined.  
Bill- I’m not sure that quantifying is always good. 
In the future, we may need different criteria on
policy issues.
Janina- do we want them to be different?
Bill- I think you do.  You may want to have a
consensus on policy rather than a simple majority.  We
need to consider that separately.  My goal is to make
this easier.
Andreas- who besides me would not have sufficient
points?
Janina- there are several people who participated in
Hawaii who would not have enough points, also Norman
Robinson from the Post Office
Andreas- as long as we have the election 6 month’s or
so, we should have adequate time to know what we need
to do.  Let’s pick a method that is reasonable and
move on.  I see Bill’s point about keeping it simple
but let’s keep the guidelines.
Janina- anyone else have any thoughts?
Matthew- the standard LSB method is fine.  It seems
like we could spend a lot of time of this.    The LSB
method will encourage people to post things and to
contribute.
Gunner- if rules are normative, you know where you
stand.
Doug- it would only take about 2 months to get enough
points to vote by attending audio-conferences and
posting. 
Janina- Bill are you strongly opposed?  
Bill- no, just trying to keep it simple
Doug- George has posted the material to the list.  We
just need to let people know that they have a week or
two to review it.   Then let everyone know we will be
voting on it two weeks from today.   If you can’t be
on the call, email your vote.
Sandy- if that’s a formal motion, I second it.
Janina- good we have a consensus on that.  Okay, we’re
moving ahead on our NSF report.  We have most of the
receipts and we are well under budget.  John is
looking at the exact date that we need to submit the
report to NSF.  I have been editing the audio to
remove side conversations.  When that is done, we’ll
post the audio files to the list and will get them
transcribed.   We can then point to these when we do
our next proposal.  I’m talking to Development Canada
to see if we can find a meeting at the Desktop
Developers Conference.  
Andreas- is anyone participating in the WWW conference
in Japan this May?
Janina- that is the annual W3C web conference, I’m on
the systems and procedures group but I don’t think I
will be attending the meeting in Japan. We may be
ready to talk to W3C – might want to ask the W3C WAI
committee to participate in our meeting to see what
they are doing.   

The keyboard group is doing really well.  We need to
come up with some clear statement on what it means
when you completed validation.  We need to think that
through and start that activity very soon.  

Earl- I am here- we will be meeting at CSUN to go over
the spec’s.
Bill- is there any way I can call into to that? 
Earl- I’ll let you know when it is.
Sandy- I’d like to participate also.

Janina- end question- how many of us will be available
next week?  If it is just Earl and Peter, we should be
able to meet next week.   We’ll see you then.



	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/




More information about the Accessibility mailing list