Re: Outstanding Issues with CTAUR

[Sharing with COGA for visibility]

Thanks Jason, understood.

In that case, can I encourage COGA members (particularly those who gave feedback on the initial draft) to review the latest version of CTAUR<https://w3c.github.io/ctaur/> to determine if there are any remaining issues? (Lisa, I know you've already done this, which prompted your latest suggested changes).

I will stress that RQTF have already made numerous edits to CTAUR in response to COGA's feedback, so hopefully there won't be too many issues left.

If it's any help, I've attached a document tracking the progress of COGA's CTAUR issues, including links to GitHub, although I gather some people have found this difficult to understand.

There's also COGA’s original feedback on CTAUR, which was on Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJhBYRI-zk2rl_mohHZ63xAGZxzpDMxhHhXT66bjFBI/edit?usp=sharing (although bear in mind that CTAUR has changed substantially since then, but it might be useful to refer back to).

Many thanks,

David Swallow
Principal UX Consultant
TPGi

________________________________
From: Jason J.G. White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 12:06 PM
To: public-rqtf@w3.org <public-rqtf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Outstanding Issues with CTAUR

CAUTION:EXTERNAL EMAIL SENDER!



On 4/4/24 06:02, David Swallow wrote:
What would members like to do about these outstanding issues? My suggestion was to hold another joint COGA-RQTF meeting, but I'm not sensing much interest in that. Another option could be for COGA members to re-review the revised CTAUR <https://w3c.github.io/ctaur/> to determine whether their issues have been addressed (the document has changed considerably since the early draft on which COGA's feedback was based). Alternatively, we could just focus on the few remaining issues identified by Lisa (see her recent email to COGA), which would help to push things forward towards publication.


The RQTF is currently working through the issues raised at last week's meeting, including Lisa's suggested changes.

Our general approach is to hold joint meetings only if there is a substantive disagreement that requires it. Thus I think the question will be, once Lisa's proposals and issues raised last week have been addressed to the satisfaction of RQTF, are there any remaining specific, textual issues with the draft that need to be resolved.