Re: APA and COGA

Are you suggesting that I have bullied or personally attacked you in this
thread?

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021, 8:55 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>