Re: Request to move ARIA meeting to either Thursday or Friday (same time)

James,

The issue is that we have people who do not get around to completing action
items. I see similar issues with Indie UI. So, shortening the meeting is
not going to change that. Incidentally, everyone who works on accessibility
is busy. Indie UI meets for an hour every other week and quite often we
have to cancel the meeting due to lack of quorum. In fact, that effort has
been far from a success. This team has actually gotten a recommendation
specification out. We would not have done that had we not had regular
meetings. We need to get 1.1 out.

I would also note that we moved the time to the time slot we have now for
the people on the west coast.

Also, getting participation AT vendors has absolutely nothing to do with
the meeting being a half hour longer than you would like. Other then the
mainstream computer companies I have not seen any Windows AT vendor willing
to step forward and participate in any WAI activities.

I don't have a problem moving the meeting to Thursday but I am not
convinced at all about moving to 1.0 hours. The issue is people are not
getting their action items completed and making meetings out-out-site,
out-of-mind is not going to further that effort.

I will tell you that my time is at a premium and I don't give it up just
for the sake of having meetings.

Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
To:	Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc:	W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Date:	11/03/2014 01:01 PM
Subject:	Re: Request to move ARIA meeting to either Thursday or Friday
            (same time)



On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> I also don't understand the proposal to shorten the meeting's running
> time?

It's about using less time more efficiently and effectively.

> It seems we're never short of agenda in 90 minutes?

In my opinion, much of the meeting discussion is not worthy of weekly group
time. With a well-organized agenda and dedication to staying on topics that
actually require group discussion, I believe we could bring this meeting
down well under an hour. Perhaps under half an hour. If we had short
meetings that always stayed on topic, we'd get more participation from the
UA and AT vendors that are currently missing from these discussions.

> So, what's the rationale for the proposal?

The implementors we need in these meetings have incredibly busy schedules.
Even 60 minutes a week is a lot to ask. The current 90 minutes is way too
much.