Re: APA and COGA

Hi Katie:

> The usual course is that working groups spawn task forces (or Community
Groups / Interest Groups) to do some particular thing. *COGA has delivered
on that expectation *in the form of the normative specification work
emerging from the Personalization TF.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2021Feb/0010.html

HTH

JF



On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:17 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am afraid I don't see a reference to Janina suggesting that the goal of
> the reason the Task Force was created to be joint responsibility has been
> satisfied.
>
> ** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect*
>
>
> *Senior Product Manager/Compliance/Accessibility **SME*
> *, **Core Merchant Framework UX, Clover*
>
>
> *W3C Advisory Committee Member and Representative for Knowbility *
>
>
> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
> = **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
>
> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
> <ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Seneca, SC **|* *LinkedIn Profile
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
>
> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
> never forget how you made them feel.......
>
> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
> dictate where we are going.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:04 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
>> Katie writes:
>>
>> > ...for the reasons it was placed as a joint TF in the first place
>>
>> Respectfully Katie, could you share that with this list again please?
>> If, as Janina has suggested, the 'goal' of that construct has been
>> satisfied (delivered), then what further value will it add going forward?
>>
>> >...to do some particular thing. COGA has delivered on that expectation...
>>
>>
>> As an active member at APA, I concur with Janina's conclusion. Not trying
>> to pick a fight, trying to understand the justification, is all.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> JF
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:22 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand what is being suggested as a change to the joint placement
>>> of COGA. I see the value in it staying right where it is, for the reasons
>>> it was placed as a joint TF in the first place. End articulation.
>>>
>>> ** katie **
>>>
>>> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
>>> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Senior Product Manager/Compliance/Accessibility **SME*
>>> *, **Core Merchant Framework UX, Clover*
>>>
>>>
>>> *W3C Advisory Committee Member and Representative for Knowbility *
>>>
>>>
>>> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
>>> = **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
>>>
>>> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
>>> <ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Seneca, SC **|* *LinkedIn Profile
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
>>>
>>> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they
>>> will never forget how you made them feel.......
>>>
>>> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
>>> dictate where we are going.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:51 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Janina,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this - I think it also serves to illustrate that other
>>>> working relationships can exist to mutual benefit without the formal
>>>> moniker of "Joint Task Force"
>>>>
>>>> JF
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:44 PM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John,
>>>>>
>>>>> You were in the process of moving to Canada when the Accessible CSS TF
>>>>> ceased to be in October. It is now a liaison relationship that's
>>>>> working
>>>>> brilliantly thanks to consistent attention from Amy Carney.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just FYI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Janina
>>>>>
>>>>> John Foliot writes:
>>>>> > Hi Lisa,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > While I certainly do believe that having voices representing the
>>>>> > communities of users with cognitive disabilities being represented
>>>>> during
>>>>> > APA discussions is important, that in no way also requires that the
>>>>> COGA
>>>>> > Task Force be a joint TF between the *actual* parent Working Group
>>>>> (AG) and
>>>>> > APA. In fact, I cannot think of another activity under the WAI
>>>>> umbrella
>>>>> > that operates as such (perhaps Accessible CSS?).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So, if you truly believe that the perspective of COGA needs to be at
>>>>> APA,
>>>>> > please come and join those calls - the more the merrier. But a formal
>>>>> > "joint task-force"? I'm struggling to see the value add there.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > JF
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:42 PM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Hi John,
>>>>> > > I have no problem with the other task forces joining APA. Maybe
>>>>> they
>>>>> > > should.
>>>>> > > The plan was for us to explore and discuss this after our
>>>>> publication. I
>>>>> > > would like to keep to that plan. If the time table is to long, we
>>>>> should be
>>>>> > > told what the time table is etc.
>>>>> > > COGA and APA need to integrate our work better.
>>>>> > > For COGA, we sometimes spin off ideas - such as personalization.
>>>>> APA
>>>>> > > reviews and work also needs to incorporate the COGA perspective.
>>>>> How this
>>>>> > > is done and how we work together is something we should explore in
>>>>> detail
>>>>> > > and with consideration for  the good of accessibility.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 7:12 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> Hi Lisa,
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> COGA is (was?) a *joint* task force between APA and AG Working
>>>>> Groups,
>>>>> > >> and I neither see nor hear a proposal to eliminate COGA, only to
>>>>> no longer
>>>>> > >> make it a joint TF with APA.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> From my perspective, APA and AG WG will continue to coordinate
>>>>> and work
>>>>> > >> together, and so I am wondering if you can articulate specific
>>>>> reasons for
>>>>> > >> keeping the joint relationship active, versus allowing COGA to
>>>>> remain a TF
>>>>> > >> of AG WG.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> I note that there are other Task Forces under AG WG that do not
>>>>> have a
>>>>> > >> joint partnership structure (Low Vision, "mobile"/touch
>>>>> interfaces, XR) and
>>>>> > >> so I'd like to understand why you feel COGA should be treated
>>>>> differently
>>>>> > >> than those other Task Forces? What advantages are gained by
>>>>> remaining a
>>>>> > >> joint Task Force?
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Thanks
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> JF
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:58 AM Lisa Seeman <
>>>>> lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
>>>>> > >> wrote:
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>> I strongly feel that APA and COGA must have a formal
>>>>> relationship and an
>>>>> > >>> improved process of working together that means ApA's work will
>>>>> includ COGA
>>>>> > >>> concerns.
>>>>> > >>> I object to a charter that does not include this and removes
>>>>> coga as a
>>>>> > >>> task force.
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>> As you know we have an important publication this month. It was
>>>>> on COGAs
>>>>> > >>> time table (as agreed) as the first item after our publication
>>>>> to work with
>>>>> > >>> the co-chairs to improve this process.
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>> All the best
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>> Lisa Seeman
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Janina Sajka
>>>>> https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux Foundation Fellow
>>>>> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
>>>>>
>>>>> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>>>>> Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
>>>>>
>>>>>