- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:42:05 +0100
- To: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mike Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, You agreed to what?!?! <team-webplatform@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
On 30/08/2016 19:03, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote: > I can appreciate some of the overhead concerns, whereby the SVG A11y > task force needs to seek approval from within the task force, and then > by the SVG working group, and then by the ARIA working group. This can > take 2-3 weeks by itself. Also, at the moment each of our groups works > on a different process. You work solely off of github whereas we have a > combination of those and will not switch entirely to github until ARIA > 1.1 completes. This change is to be more agile. > > I think it is extremely important, going forward, that platform owners > take ownership of accessibility infrastructure even if it means use of > specifications outside the working group (in this case ARIA). We also > need to be more agile and many of us appreciate the desire to not > duplicate process. > > If the Web Platforms working group would like to have sole ownership, I > would like to propose a one month review period for reviewing the > HTML-AAM CR spec. and quarterly updates of working drafts to ensure that > the ARIA Working Group, and others as well, be able to review the > specification. This would work for us. Thanks Rich. > > We should also work on the supposition of a good faith that both working > groups will do the right thing. I see no reason to think otherwise. This is our thinking too. The work will be done by the same editors and with input from the same people, the only thing that will change is that we avoid the process pain you outline above. > > Michael, I would like to hear your thoughts? +1 Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 18:42:39 UTC