Re: APA and COGA

Speaking of bullying & personal attacks...

> I am wondering, have you been promoted to APA chair

I have not. However, as an active participant in the weekly activities of
the APA WG, I believe I have an informed opinion both of the ongoing
activities of that Working Group as well as the APA Charter discussions,
which I have tried to respctfully explain here.

I have asked previously why Lisa (or you) feel that returning the COGA TF
to a single sponsored TF would be unwarranted, to which you gave a vague
response "...for the original reason it was located where it is."

AFAIK, that reason was to have a place to spin up the Personalization TF
activity (of which I am also a contributor), and that Task Force is now
approaching publication of its first FPWD (so a group well along in it's
activity) AND that Personalization TF delivers regular updates to the APA
WG, without the specific contributions of any COGA-only members. Because of
this, I believe the need for having COGA return to a single WG-sponsored
Task Force is appropriate - nothing more. Per Janina's response (and she
*is* the Chair of APA) the reason for the joint Task Force has been
satisfied.

> I believe I suggested COGA has
delivered on the APA expectation (originally the PF expectation) more
than once, but certainly one is archived on the main APA list

You of course can disagree, but your tone with me is not appreciated, and I
request that you curtail the personal attacks. It is creating a hostile
work environment.

JF

(Sent from my mobile, apologies for any spelling mistakes)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021, 7:10 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Janina,
>
> Thanks for that context. I was not aware of that email.
>
> I am not sure that COGAs delivery is 'done', and changing its location
> seems unnecessary, again for the original reason it was located where it
> is.
>
> I am not suggesting things cannot change - I am reacting more to the
> bullying and ridicule that being directed at Lisa and others.
>
> I would prefer to see a calm thoughtful discussion of options to address
> COGA participants and Lisa's  legitimate concerns. And I would appreciate
> it if bulliers were left out of that discussion.
>
> John,
>
> You said: "Nonetheless, I don't believe that COGA, or the interests and
> activities that those specialists at the W3C are actively working on, will
> lose out by making the COGA TF a single-sponsored Task Force once again
> under AG WG, and you've not really brought any material evidence to the
> contrary. COGA is not being dismantled, it's simply not going to remain
> under the joint AG / APA umbrella, but remain solely under the AG WG
> umbrella instead."
>
> I am wondering, have you been promoted to APA chair?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021, 6:11 PM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Katie:
>>
>> My comments during a Personalization TF teleconference this morning
>> seemed to have spawned a couple threads with cc's to different
>> individuals and at one of our APA lists. I believe I suggested COGA has
>> delivered on the APA expectation (originally the PF expectation) more
>> than once, but certainly one is archived on the main APA list here:
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2021Feb/0010.html
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Janina
>>
>> Katie Haritos-Shea writes:
>> > 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
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>