[Accessforall] When is the next 24751 call ?

Gregg Vanderheiden gv at trace.wisc.edu
Tue Jul 2 12:25:04 EDT 2013


I think this is a great idea. I think that if we create a email thread for each question and wiki page to capture proposals and resolutions and also for people to contribute, we would make better progress faster.

Some of the threats will be long but probably no longer than the meetings

In particular I think it's going to do this on the wiki as much as we can rather then a listserv because it will be easier for ideas and comments to stay organized



Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net

On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:12 AM, "Treviranus, Jutta (Academic)" <jtreviranus at faculty.ocadu.ca> wrote:

> As clarification (and I'll try to keep this brief). (Please see the concluding proposal at the end of this message.)
> 
> We are transitioning the ISO 24751 standard from a standard that standardized the terms and information model to a standard with a registration authority for the terms and "application profiles" as additional parts. The proposed registration authority is GPII (of which Cloud4All, FLOE, Prosperity4All are funded components). 
> 
> The GPII members are participating in the meetings to help plan the formation of the registry. This plan would be reflected in Part 2 of ISO 24751. 
> 
> We still have some minor and some substantive questions to resolve, among these are:
> - whether or not there is a secondary process for stable or mature terms or whether there is a metrics process with adjustments for minority terms,
> - the minimum fields that must be included when submitting a candidate term to the registry,
> - how to handle labels/alias's within the registry,
> and
> - the new name of the standard and the registry - there were some objections to AccessForAll
> 
> We could, at this point, create a draft standard for ISO review but many of the decision makers and implementers of the proposed registry, as Andy pointed out, are not national body representatives within the ISO process. 
> 
> We could also use the email list or Wiki to receive and process input on these questions rather than hold extensive synchronous meetings. This may be the best way forward as many people have uncertain schedules over the summer. 
> 
> PROPOSED PROCESS:
> 
> My proposal therefore is that we tackle each of the open issues by list and Wiki with focused questions sent to the group, including a draft proposal regarding how to resolve the issue (or one or two candidate resolutions), and a time-constrained period for input through the list. 
> 
> Once we have dealt with the major issues that must to be resolved before we can create an ISO draft, we complete the draft for ISO review.
> 
> We would therefore suspend synchronous meetings regarding the ISO standard. (This does not obviate the meetings to plan and implement the registry.)
> 
> Any questions? Any objections to this proposed process?
> 
> thanks
> Jutta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-07-02, at 4:34 AM, Andy Heath <andyheath at axelrod.plus.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jutta,
>> 
>> If you still think we need substantial discussion (personally I'd like to see a lot more drafting of details and emailed comments on the drafts than not-so-focussed oral discussion) then I suggest you might do a doodle or whenisgood with availability for a regular general week time not a specific one.  I filled it in for the specific week requested last time and it happened to be a week when I had a number of calls and meetings I don't usually have - my availability is much greater usually - I have no idea how much my constraints were a factor.  Then if someone can't make it some particular week, well that's the way it rolls in groups that are not very small.
>> 
>> There are two things I don't understand about the plans here ...
>> 
>> 1. What is the purpose of doing all this quite academic discussion among editors outside of SC36 context - when we expose work to the wider audience in SC36 its going to be disassembled, dissected, discussed, re-worked, balloted, changed and so on - there is no guarantee that national bodies other than the ones that are actively involved as editors will accept the work without change.
>> 
>> 2. My understanding of the process was that the standard would be constructed around practices that had been implemented and tested inside the GPII framework (whatever that is) and that one project testing ideas here was C4ALL.  If we're all sitting around debating what are the correct ideas that should go into the standard then what was C4ALL for ?  Like some others I have given of my time and expertise freely to these meetings over a substantial period and I'm not sure why because it appears to me that we are discussing ideas we had before C4ALL anyway ? Can someone explain to me how C4ALL experience goes forward into this debate when we are discussing the foundations that we were led to believe that project was figuring out how to do and testing ?
>> 
>> andy
>>> I think I'd like a clear indication of what is to be published when as a
>>> start to the two Parts of 24751, and a clear agenda for the meetings. I
>>> like to attend the meetings because otherwise things get fragmented and
>>> I get confused! I will agree to terrible times for the meeting in order
>>> to have just one meeting - does that help??
>>> 
>>> On my side, I am working hard to have a draft of Part 3 ready at least
>>> for discussion at the Moscow meeting. This means having it published
>>> (within ISO) a few weeks before the meeting. I assume this is the case
>>> for Parts 1 and 2 as well?
>>> 
>>> Liddy
>>> 
>>> On 01/07/2013, at 11:32 PM, Treviranus, Jutta (Academic) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The only times that had 2 or less people that could not make it were
>>>> 11am EDT/ on Wednesday and 10am or 11am on Thursday. The people
>>>> affected are Liddy and Madeleine on Thursday and Liddy and Gottfried
>>>> on Wednesday.
>>>> 
>>>> My proposal is to hold two  1 hour meetings at:
>>>> Wednesday at 11am EDT, 5pm CET, 1am Liddy time, 4pm Andy time, 10am
>>>> Gregg time, and
>>>> Friday at 8am EDT, 1pm CET, 10pm Liddy time, 7am Gregg time, noon Andy
>>>> time.
>>>> 
>>>> Does anyone have a better suggestion?
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> Jutta
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jutta Treviranus
>>>> Professor and Director
>>>> Inclusive Design Research Centre and Inclusive Design Institute
>>>> OCAD University
>>>> 
>>>> On 2013-07-01, at 8:43 AM, Liddy Nevile <liddy at sunriseresearch.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm confused too?????
>>>>> 
>>>>> Liddy
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 01/07/2013, at 9:58 PM, Andy Heath wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just a tad confused, maybe I missed some mails ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> andy
>>>>>> andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> __________________
>>>>>> Andy Heath
>>>>>> http://axelafa.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> andy
>> andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
>> -- 
>> __________________
>> Andy Heath
>> http://axelafa.com
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/accessforall/attachments/20130702/878f8cd6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 7318 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/accessforall/attachments/20130702/878f8cd6/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the Accessforall mailing list