RE: [Maturity Model] Processes and procedures for the sub-group

Thanks for the quick response Janina,

There is a wiki page with information about the Maturity Model. Sheri Byrne-Haber and David Fazio, on copy, are the co-facilitators. Meetings have been held weekly on Wednesdays at 11 AM Eastern time, though I’m not sure when the group actually began. I don’t see any documentation on the wiki page of whether there are meeting minutes for any of the meetings held thus far other than meeting minutes with this as a topic for a few AG WG and Silver task force meetings starting in June 2021. I’ve only become somewhat involved in November 2021.


There is an IRC channel:  #silver-maturity

Best regards,

Mary Jo
_______________________________________
Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager

"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."  ~John Quincy Adams
--


From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:56 AM
To: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>, dfazio@helixopp.com <dfazio@helixopp.com>, ran@w3.org <ran@w3.org>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Maturity Model] Processes and procedures for the sub-group
Dear Mary Jo, All:

On behalf of Matthew and myself as APA Co-Chairs, please know we fully
intend to help provide standard W3C process and structure to ongoing
work on the Maturity Model. We have been discussing how we would like to
organize that among ourselves, and a bit in the regular APA
teleconference to date. However, I must confess nobody informed us there
was a regular teleconference already active! This comes as a surprise.
Was there an identified Facilitator under Silver? Is there a repository
of minutes?

So, when and how often? What channel? I'm not promissing we'll keep it,
but we'll certainly conduct regular teleconferences as well as asynchronous
document development.


This latest news will certainly be taken into account, but let me tell
our thinking before reading this email (and the response it received
overnight).

We're looking at resuming early in April with regular teleconferences.


We're considering locating the work in APA's Research Questions Task
Force (RQTF), thought with a meeting specifically for Maturity Model,
because we don't believe adding it to the already heavy RQTF load on the
regular RQTF call makes sense.

We're considering an early goal would be to publish a First Public
Working Draft. Consequently, we will be relying on github.

I've cc'd this email to public-apa@w3.org, because it belongs on list in
the archives. Part of adopting W3C structure and process requires we
document our communications and our work.

Meanwhile, if any of you are NOT members of APA, please have your AC
representatives add you. And, any of you who are Invited Experts under
AGWG will need to apply for Invited Expert status in APA. Please contact
me by return email if you need details.

Looking forward to working with you all on this important effort,

Janina

Mary Jo Mueller writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Wasn’t sure if there is an established sub-group for email correspondence about the maturity model work since it was moved to APA, so thought I’d start with a direct email with the leadership and we can go from there.
>
> I voiced some concerns in today’s maturity model meeting, and I think it is best to document what I said (and more) in this email. No minutes were created today and not everyone on copy was present at the meeting. I know that process can sometimes be a bit of a pain and a little more work,  but I feel like there needs to be at least some level of it. Janina, since you’ve been running APA so smoothly and for so long, I am sure you can be of help to make the process stuff as painless as possible for this small group.
>
> Please do not consider my thoughts as criticizm of the group or of the leadership. This is coming from personal difficulties in regularly attending meetings and these process differences from other groups I’ve been involved in are affecting my ability to effectively contribute.
>
> What is needed (in my personal view):
>
>   *   An agenda with links to any pertinent review/discussion material that goes out at least 48 hours prior to the weekly meeting.
>   *   Minutes to be taken and sent out for each meeting (documents agenda with discussion, provides links, documents decisions).
>   *   Everyone has to learn how to use IRC and basic scribe commands so we can take turns scribing. We may need to spend a meeting going over this.
>   *   We need to work from one source of truth for the draft document. I had created the content in GitHub in the hopes that future work would be done using GitHub, but this is not the case. I have also been developing comments based on the GitHub version of the document which, I discovered today, is not being kept current.
>
>      *   The Google document is still being used, so it is difficult to follow what is changing and who is working on what.
>      *   If you miss a meeting or two, you’ve no idea what has transpired or what the group is currently focusing on.
>      *   Working out of a google document causes more work with re-creating the document once again in GitHub to ensure all changes are carried over from the Google doc to the published doc.
>      *   Anyone checking in on progress will see none unless they stumble upon the Google doc link.
>
>   *   An agreed process to handling and assigning issues, and my suggestions going forward.
>
>      *   All group members should have a GitHub ID.  Then any group member can create issues, be assigned an issue, be able to propose answers, and contribute to issue discussion threads. This will create better workflow, workload balancing, and tracking of issue resolution progress.
>      *   If someone isn’t comfortable making changes in the GitHub source document, they could propose changes in issue comments (the editors could take them up into a pull request so the group can review outside of the meeting, discuss/approve in the meeting, and be merged into the editor’s draft of the document by the editors). It seems that not everyone is comfortable with GitHub, including the editors. It is a bit of a learning process that the editors may need education or help with. Or there may need to be an editor in charge of those technical aspects.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary Jo
> _______________________________________
> Mary Jo Mueller
> IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager
>
> "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."  ~John Quincy Adams
> --
>

--

Janina Sajka
(she/her/hers)
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