10084 2010-07-05 13:25:00 +0000 Please consider adding a section on Chair recusal in deciding escalated issues 2010-07-28 01:31:27 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG working group Decision Policy unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html P2 normal --- 1 laura.lee.carlson dave.null mike mjs Paul.Cotton rubys shelleyp public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 36583 0 laura.lee.carlson 2010-07-05 13:25:00 +0000 Please consider adding a section on Chair recusal, detailing grounds for when a chair is expected to abstain from participation in a making a decision on an escalated issue. Listing grounds would benefit chairs and the working group in knowing decisions rendered on escalated issues are fair, free from prejudice and conflicts of interest. Some possible recusal grounds: * When a chair determines himself that he cannot act impartially. * When a chair has a direct "interest" in the pending issue. (A chair should not be judge in his or her own cause.) * When a chair has authored the change proposal being decided.[1] * When a chair has previous expressed option for either side, or when, they are so related or associated with either side as to render it improper for him to participate in the decision. [2] Some qualities of a good chair include patience, wisdom, courage, firmness, sympathy, understanding, alertness, incorruptibility, impartiality and knowing when to recuse themselves from making decisions. Thank you. [1] Specific example for issue 30 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning [2] Specific example for issue 30 <othermaciej> "add longdesc... for the children! the poor disabled children!" http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20071224#l-16 References: Judicial disqualification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification 36589 1 shelleyp 2010-07-05 14:29:42 +0000 I had some concerns about this myself: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100701#l-821 36947 2 laura.lee.carlson 2010-07-16 11:48:30 +0000 Examples for Issue 31 Missing alt * "Mail.app and other mail clients don't put alt attributes on images generated in email" - Maciej Stachowiak, April 11, 2007 [1]. * "I can only imagine it [alt] being useful as an advanced feature for experts. Normal people won't understand why a mail program would prompt them to type in some text about an image, that will then not be visible to them or their recipient." - Maciej Stachowiak, April 19, 2007 [2]. * Ian cited Maciej's [3] email as the reason for the redefinition of the image element from a Vlad Alexander type definition [4] to optional alt in bug 9098 [5]. [1] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010963.html [3] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html [4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 [5] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9098#c1 36948 3 laura.lee.carlson 2010-07-16 11:51:29 +0000 Example from Atom: "As to Atom. This happens to be an area of expertise of mine, and I was fully prepared to recuse myself from any decision relating to that topic." - Sam Ruby, June 8, 2010. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0508.html 37079 4 laura.lee.carlson 2010-07-23 13:58:09 +0000 Another Issue 31 example: Previous expressed opinion: "ALT should not be required either. It leads to pointless alt="" on images that have no reasonable text equivalent, just to satisfy conformance checkers. And that is actively harmful, because AT can't tell the difference between a semantically null image and a semantically meaningful image with no text alternative." - Maciej Stachowiak http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0391.html Calling the alt attribute a "cargo cult talisman" regarding the email exception: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html 37119 5 mjs 2010-07-28 01:31:27 +0000 Th Chairs discussed this. We do not think it is appropriate to define a recusal process. As defined in the W3C Process Document[1] and the W3C Guidelines on the Role of the Chair[2], Chairs are not generally expected to recuse themselves from issues where they have an interest or an opinion. Rather, Chairs are expected to have the "ability (both actual and perceived by the Working Group -- including potential competitors) to forge consensus fairly and without bias from your affiliation/employer and, sometimes, even your own technical positions". The Chairs believe that collectively we can set aside bias from employers and from our own technical positions, and consider issues impartially. In extreme cases, as when a Chair writes a Change Proposal or takes a strong position on an issue in the course of Chair-led discussion, it is likely that particular Chair will refrain from authoring the written decision, should one be necessary. We will discuss amongst ourselves and confer with members of the W3C Team on this as necessary. However, we do not think it is appropriate to formalize this in a written policy. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/ [2] http://www.w3.org/Guide/chair-roles.html