RE: Change in process?

Jason, are you responding to the correct thread? (I think it is  the kind of accommodation you would welcome)

The COGA task force are having trouble tracking all the disjointed comments on issues and email threads etc etc . we often have to restate use cases that we already wrote up and provide links to content that we have already cited or  comments  to reduce the scope -to what we already had!   bare in mind some of us are slow readers or have difficulty focusing  and or are new to w3c and wcag processes. our expertise is the use cases.  some of us can not track the comment system and threads and therefore many are backing off commenting and are exhausted from participating. 


the proposal is  for after 2.1 first draft we change the process a bit and have a dedicated call on each SC or use need where we focus on understand the issues, talk though the use cases and then move on to solving issues with the wording.people who then comment should be expected to at least have reads the all the relevant minutes and we do not move to the next issue untill we close the current one. Also having everyone in COGA learn how to use GitHub and do pull requests branches and folks is a questionable use of our expert resources.  A lot of our wonderful members stepped up, but it is not working well. all this parallel  working assumes people can multi task and ignore the learning curve.


A different proposal is also ok, but we need to find a process that we can all participate in without unnecessary stress and pain if we can.






Bare in mind 
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:28:54 +0200  White<jjwhite@ets.org> wrote ---- 

     
  
     From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
 Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 10:47 AM
 
 
 
 
   I find that frankly very discouraging, because everyone who shows up to WCAG calls and provides feedback on this list are dedicated accessibility professionals who have demonstrated through their personal histories and actions how much they care about accessibility. If some members of the Working Group are finding the resistance to some of these SC difficult now, I fear what will happen when they are published for wider review by non-accessibility experts later this year.
 [Jason] I fully support John’s comments here, adding that one of the most effective ways of inspiring external resistance (by which I mean outright opposition) would be to publish a lot of under-prepared proposals in a working draft, as some have advocated in this discussion. I am concerned that the road to WCAG 2.1 will be difficult; there may be formal objections along the way. We need good, well founded, efficacious, clearly written proposals that can be defended, should this become necessary. More importantly, Web content authors and people with disabilities deserve high-quality proposals which will address accessibility barriers by the most effective means that we can specify. Finally, it should be recalled that whatever we put into WCAG 2.1 is likely to last a long time, so the standard for acceptance is necessarily high.
 I am encouraged that we have a capable and committed community of working group participants who are collaborating to undertake this challenging task.
  
 
 
 
 
 
  This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 
 Thank you for your compliance.