- From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:23:26 +0200
- To: "Bakken, Brent" <brent.bakken@pearson.com>
- Cc: "Robert Jolly" <robert@knowbility.org>, public-eo-plan@w3.org, "Mary Jo Mueller" <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
- Message-ID: <10686561-3B19-47FD-BB07-B6FA6B9CB675@w3.org>
All 15 issues from wai-policieslist are now moved to the wai-policies prototype repository. I’ve marked them with the question label for MaryJo’s or Robert’s attention. (Most seem to be addressed and/or from MaryJo.) https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aquestion Best, Eric PS: This was a welcome change of pace :-D PPS: I will likely make changes to the prototype to port it to the new layout this or early next week. On 14 Sep 2017, at 11:08, Eric Eggert wrote: > From the word doc: > >> Regarding the Repository(ies): > >> Currently there are two separate GitHub repositories for Policies. We >> need to get this down to one repository to eliminate any confusion. >> We would like you to reach out to Eric and work with him to solve >> this issue. >> > >> The current repositories are: >> > >> * https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype/issues (this is where >> current submissions go) > >> * https://github.com/w3c/wai-policieslist/issues (but this name makes >> more sense) >> > >> Please work on the following tasks to clean this up: >> > >> 1. Find out from Eric which repository should be kept and which one >> should be removed/ closed. > > I think we should keep https://github.com/w3c/wai-policies-prototype > because it has more and more recent comments, IIRC. > > We can rename the repository to something more sensible, for example > w3c/wai-policies (all links that went to wai-policies-prototype would > not resolve anymore, however. There might be a way to set redirects.) > > (I wonder if the name is a big problem – the perspectives videos > repo is wai-showcase-examples, for example.) > > >> 2. There are issues in both repositories. Look through all issues in >> each and close any issues that are complete or no longer relevant to >> current or future work. >> > >> 3. Some issues were put off until after the AccessU push. Look >> through those and determine if any can be completed before relaunch. >> If they need to wait until after relaunch or 2018 then we need to >> confirm that list is OK with EOWG, as the expectation is that they >> would be picked up and worked on in near future. > > I think the issues need some coordinated actions from Robert and me > and maybe MaryJo. _Maybe_ I can have a look at what needs to be done > and do some/all of it while y’all are doing the user-testing. > > >> 4. Work with Eric to transfer issues (open and closed), if possible, >> to the repository that will be kept. If they cannot be transferred, >> then you may need to close some in one and open them in the other. > > I am just using https://github-issue-mover.appspot.com to move all > issues from the policieslist to the policies-prototype repository. > > >> 5. Once everything is completed, have Eric close the repository that >> we will not use. BE SURE THE ONE KEPT OPEN IS THE ONE THAT WILL >> RECEIVE SUBMISSIONS. > > I can do that :-) > > BRB > > Eric > > > > On 14 Sep 2017, at 0:26, Bakken, Brent wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> Thank you so much for forwarding again. We figured out the issue with >> the >> email, so I will see all future "planning" emails. >> >> The planning team met this morning to discuss and provide feedback. >> Sorry >> for the delay of the response. *Attached is a Word doc* where we had >> made >> some edits and added our recommendations to complete your plan. You >> will >> find everything that we added or changed highlighted in yellow so you >> can >> find it all quickly. >> >> With this feedback integrated into your plan, it is approved and you >> are >> good to go. Please keep up the great work as you go through the edits >> and >> work with your review team to get to a final draft. Remember, if you >> have >> any questions at all, please reach out to me right away and I will >> get you >> what you need to keep moving forward. >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions about what we have >> added. >> Happy to provide more detail if needed. >> >> Thanks, >> Brent (& Planning Team) >> >> >> >> >> Brent A. Bakken >> Director, Accessibility Strategy & Education Services >> Pearson >> >> 512 202 1087 >> brent.bakken@pearson.com >> >> Learn more at pearson.com >> >> [image: Pearson] >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Robert Jolly <robert@knowbility.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Brent, >>> >>> I sent it, and asked about the status in my Survey submission this >>> week. >>> Something weird must be happening! Here it is again: >>> >>> (sent to public-eo-plan@w3.org on 8/24/2017 at 12:25 PM MDT) >>> >>> Hello EO Planning Team, >>> >>> I have been reviewing the Web Accessibility Laws and Policies >>> resource for >>> its readiness for the new site design/re-launch, and the resource is >>> in >>> very good shape, overall. As part of the review process, I have >>> created an initial >>> Policies Workflow wiki page >>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Policies_Workflow> to document how >>> the >>> resource will be maintained over time. Please review it and let me >>> know >>> what changes you suggest to clarify or simplify the process and >>> ensure it >>> is complete and accurate as possible. >>> >>> There are a couple of tasks that should be planned for pre-launch, >>> and >>> they are listed below. >>> >>> 1. Review and make edits to the Policies Workflow >>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Policies_Workflow> wiki >>> documentation. >>> 2. Review content within the Policies resource against the WAI Style >>> Guide >>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style> and make any suggestions for >>> corrections/updates in GitHub. >>> This Style Guide review task is not expected to yield substantial >>> changes, >>> as the resource was recently re-published with the whole group’s >>> involvement in editing the content. >>> >>> Regarding the Workflow wiki page, I have been thinking about whether >>> or >>> not we should mention it or link to it from the Policies pages where >>> appropriate (like on the Submission page for changes/additions). I >>> would >>> like to have feedback from the planning team on whether or not we >>> need to >>> expose that level of detail directly, though. >>> >>> If all of this looks good to you, I will begin that work and >>> distribute to >>> the Policies reviewers quickly to keep things on track. >>> >>> Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions, >>> suggestions, >>> or needs that I can help with. >>> >>> -Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Robert Jolly >>> Sr. Web Accessibility Strategy Consultant >>> knowbility.org | @knowbility <https://twitter.com/knowbility> >>> *Equal access to technology for people with disabilities* >>> >>> >>> On Sep 7, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Bakken, Brent <brent.bakken@pearson.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Robert, >>> >>> Did you by chance send in the policy plan of action to the planning >>> team? >>> I didn't see the email, or I completely misplaced it. I don't want >>> to delay >>> your work. >>> >>> I know you created the workflow wiki and I have seen that. I just >>> can't >>> find the plan for simple updates to the resource. >>> >>> Let me know if I am missing something. >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> Brent A. Bakken >>> Director, Accessibility Strategy & Education Services >>> Pearson >>> >>> 512 202 1087 <(512)%20202-1087> >>> brent.bakken@pearson.com >>> >>> Learn more at pearson.com >>> >>> [image: Pearson] >>> >>>
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2017 09:23:37 UTC