Thread Subject: Re: Requests from General forfuture considerations
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Oct 30 2006 1:25 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Requests from General forfutureconsiderations"
- Previous message in thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Requests from General for future considerations"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
On 10/30/06, Bailey Bruce < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> The General subcommittee asks that future membership in subcommittee be
> an agenda item for discussion at the November 8th and 9th sessions.
> The General subcommittee asks the Tools Task Force to investigate
> separating out the ability to subscribe from the ability to post to a
This is probably a discussion for the main committee meeting, but what is
the reason for limiting subcommittee membership and participation? Any move
in this direction seems to go against the protocols that were adopted. On
the conference call, it was noted that this is to alleviate the spam
'problem', when with the exception of a couple of links added to a wiki
page, there has been no spam at all. I just wouldn't want there to be an
impression that spam is a big problem and that the only way to solve it is
to lock everything down when there is no existing spam problem to begin
with. Much has been done to ensure that spam is minimized and if it does
occur, it is quickly removed. If the motivations for limiting public
activity is something else (subcommittees are too large, not balanced,
etc.), then let's certainly proceed with that discussion.
- Next message in Thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Requests from General forfutureconsiderations"
- Previous message in Thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Requests from General for future considerations"