- From: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>
- Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 01:11:09 +0000
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- CC: "public-rqtf@w3.org" <public-rqtf@w3.org>
To Janina and Jason Thanks for that and sounds like a great approach. If we did want to manage the process in APA/RQTF I'd be happy to volunteer as the contact to drive it, respond to public comments in GitHub etc and support its likely frequent updates long-term if that helps. Scott. Dr Scott Hollier Digital Access Specialist Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909 Web: www.hollier.info Technology for everyone Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter. -----Original Message----- From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> Sent: Friday, 27 August 2021 10:28 PM To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> Cc: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>; public-rqtf@w3.org Subject: Re: Understanding where the remote meetings work fits Thank you, Janina. We should probably consider which of our Note-track publications ought to be put forward for potential elevation to W3C Statements (if the draft Process Document is adopted with this category included). If we want Remote Meetings to be a candidate for this, then obviously it needs to be on the Note track first. So, indeed, this is a possible outcome that should be weighed in the balance as Janina suggests. When we last discussed this issue, there was a significant body of opinion in support of the Note process. It wasn't a consensus, but I don't recall strong objections being raised either. The strongest argument against it that I can think of would be to claim that publication of this material as a Note would be out of scope for APA, and that it should be an Education and Outreach Working Group deliverable instead. This would be a process-based argument to the effect that we can't proceed with it. I am definitely not an expert on W3C process requirements and issues of Working Group scope, so I won't advance an opinion here. I suppose it could be claimed that a less formal publication is easier to update; but it isn't clear to me that this document would need to be updated more regularly than other work which is already and uncontroversially heading toward W3C Note status. Are there other counter-arguments that I'm missing? Proposed practical steps: 1. Ascertain the position of the Education and Outreach Working Group in particular. 2. Unless they want to assert responsibility for completing this work, find out whether there are any process impediments to a Note publication by APA, or whether it can be done jointly with EO. 3. If we're clear to proceed and there are no substantial arguments for a less formal approach, move it to First Public Working Draft when it is ready for public review. -----Original Message----- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> Sent: Friday, 27 August 2021 9:39 To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> Cc: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>; public-rqtf@w3.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Understanding where the remote meetings work fits Let me throw one additional option into the mix. There's a new W3C category in the draft 2021 process document called W3C Statement, a kind of super Note status that has the imprimatur White, Jason J writes: f the W3C, whereas a Note is a Working Group deliverable that doesn't carry the wider W3C endorsement. See Sec. 6.4.3 for details here: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FProcess%2FDrafts%2F%23note-track&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483134609%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=yOTSr5TjM9o3FD6CGzTrytsFR21Ltc4UocEmp%2FvHAes%3D&reserved=0 > Thank you, Scott, for giving consideration to this question. My personal view (not as Co-Facilitator, but as a Task Force participant) is that it could readily be published as an APA Working Group Note – a byproduct, one might suggest, of our related investigation of real-time communication accessibility. > There is overlap here with the scope of the Education and Outreach Working Group, as has I think been acknowledged previously by others. They should at least be invited to review it. They may not wish to take over responsibility for it, due to their existing workload. Thus I suspect (though this is purely informed speculation) that it is we who will need to carry it to publication, if we want it to be published in the near term. Clarification of the collaboration opportunities with EO would be valuable, however. > The alternative to note status would be something less formal, published on the W3C/WAI Web site, I suppose. I don’t know whether there are established process expectations in that case. I agree with Janina that this document would benefit from undergoing the formal public reviews that note-track documents receive. The messaging associated with it could be awkward due to a perception of overlap with other work, and the relationship with Education and Outreach. On the other hand, it seems to me we do wish it to receive public attention, for otherwise it won’t achieve its purpose of influencing practice. > A third option would be to divide it up and to feed the components to other working groups and other document development efforts. The problem, from my perspective, with this option is that there currently don’t appear to be good destinations for the pieces that we would expect to be published within a reasonable amount of time. > Do we want it published soon, in an approximation of its present form, and with formal public review? If so, then the Note track is the best established path, but a less formal publication would also be an option. In either case, this Task Force will most probably end up taking the responsibility for completing it, unless EO want extra work or would contemplate a joint arrangement with APA. > Obviously, the assumptions on which I’m founding these comments could be mistaken. They’re only my personal views and perceptions – and somewhat speculative. > > From: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info> > Sent: Thursday, 26 August 2021 20:18 > To: public-rqtf@w3.org > Subject: Understanding where the remote meetings work fits > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > To the RQTF > > Thanks to Janina providing this link: > > > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > w3.org%2F2020%2FProcess-20200915%2F%23Reports&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhi > te%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f3 > 7e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483134609%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW > IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000& > amp;sdata=2ZkjKp7LcUTRgY3dV26HODSR%2BdPO%2BfXAV7DCI6UZca8%3D&reser > ved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > 2Fwww.w3.org%2F2020%2FProcess-20200915%2F%23Reports&data=04%7C01%7 > Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34f > ae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7 > C1000&sdata=pWrAp5HqHIf9onjOOum4P8d0JboGEQye42xp0u33Sq4%3D&res > erved=0> > > and a few others, I’m of the view that the remote meetings draft seems to fit the requirements for being progressed into a Note base don the definitions. I had a concern previously that as it provides guidance to multiple audiences it may be an issue but I can’t see this defined as an issue specifically. > > What do others think? I’m still not entirely clear on the difference between a Note, a resource and statement in terms of defining the work so it’d be helpful to discuss on list before our next meeting. > > Thanks everyone, > > Scott. > > > > [Scott Hollier logo]Dr Scott Hollier > Digital Access Specialist > Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909 > Web: > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.h > ollier.info%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c2 > 5cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C63765668 > 3483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI > iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dUDh0fMThAOyCTzbjV%2B > nikYYLiXN9cheC9k1i7GLFBA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.pro > tection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollier.info%2F&data=04% > 7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b7 > 60b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFp > bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn > 0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dUDh0fMThAOyCTzbjV%2BnikYYLiXN9cheC9k1i7GLFBA%3D > &reserved=0> > > Technology for everyone > > Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fscotthollier&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FANmPwfNUc3r9OGYybfYAh135mwQvw%2FyIOCwkujc0kI%3D&reserved=0>. > > From: Scott Hollier > Sent: Thursday, 26 August 2021 10:16 AM > To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>; > public-rqtf@w3.org<mailto:public-rqtf@w3.org> > Subject: RE: Editorial revisions to Accessibility of Remote Meetings > > To the RQTF > > Thanks for that Jason. I had a read through prior to yesterday’s meeting and it’s looking really good at this stage, great work. > > Also from the meeting, I’d like to follow up on Janina’s comment that > we need to identify what we’re doing with this, and by memory we > agreed two weeks ago that there was plans to discuss on the WAI call > > That said, I’m thinking that as a group we can help progress what we think is best for the document, and for me it’d really help if I could read some definitions as to how W3C defines particular documents. Is there a link where it specifically explains the differences between Note, resource and statement? I thinkthis’d be helpful in the review to see what definitions line up best with the content at the moment and make some decisions Abou it going forward. > > Thanks everyone, > > Scott. > > > > [Scott Hollier logo]Dr Scott Hollier > Digital Access Specialist > Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909 > Web: > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.h > ollier.info%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c2 > 5cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C63765668 > 3483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI > iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dUDh0fMThAOyCTzbjV%2B > nikYYLiXN9cheC9k1i7GLFBA%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.pro > tection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollier.info%2F&data=04% > 7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b7 > 60b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFp > bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn > 0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dUDh0fMThAOyCTzbjV%2BnikYYLiXN9cheC9k1i7GLFBA%3D > &reserved=0> > > Technology for everyone > > Keep up with digital access news by following @scotthollier on Twitter<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fscotthollier&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FANmPwfNUc3r9OGYybfYAh135mwQvw%2FyIOCwkujc0kI%3D&reserved=0>. > > From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> > Sent: Thursday, 26 August 2021 4:07 AM > To: public-rqtf@w3.org<mailto:public-rqtf@w3.org> > Subject: RE: Editorial revisions to Accessibility of Remote Meetings > > Dear colleagues, > Time constraints did not permit us to discuss these proposed changes to Accessibility of Remote Meetings today. Thus, any review that you can offer prior to next week’s meeting would be welcome in order to facilitate progress. > I also anticipate further discussion of our publication plans for this document (raised briefly at today’s meeting, but likely to be considered more fully next week). > The original note regarding the changes is reproduced for convenience below. > > From: White, Jason J > Sent: Friday, 20 August 2021 11:36 > To: public-rqtf@w3.org<mailto:public-rqtf@w3.org> > Subject: Editorial revisions to Accessibility of Remote Meetings > > Dear colleagues, > > I have reorganized aspects of the Accessibility of Remote Meetings draft, while introducing clarificatory, editorial changes. > > The pull request on GitHub is at > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith > ub.com%2Fw3c%2Fapa%2Fpull%2F227&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7 > Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7 > C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMD > AiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B%2B > hj1PEO4PInYyZ1HlzX9TTiao4sGwlAJTiEroWNdWs%3D&reserved=0<https://na > m10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw > 3c%2Fapa%2Fpull%2F227&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86ad > c8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C6 > 37656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi > V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B%2Bhj1PEO4PIn > YyZ1HlzX9TTiao4sGwlAJTiEroWNdWs%3D&reserved=0> > > The proposed text is rendered at > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw. > githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fapa%2Fremote-meetings-clarification%2Fremote-meeti > ngs%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d9 > 69600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C6376566834831446 > 03%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI > 6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=q6GO3ASGEbjzLs3dSJZrph20TbaVF > gLCnNzpPLzGUww%3D&reserved=0<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.ou > tlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fapa%2Fremote-meet > ings-clarification%2Fremote-meetings%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40e > ts.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd > 9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC > 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sd > ata=q6GO3ASGEbjzLs3dSJZrph20TbaVFgLCnNzpPLzGUww%3D&reserved=0> > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > > Thank you for your compliance. > > ________________________________ > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > > Thank you for your compliance. > > ________________________________ -- Janina Sajka https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjsajka&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VAq0NVNyhgWFlpI6KH%2BEgoEBnB%2FEQ6uUyNx9ihHprHA%3D&reserved=0 Linux Foundation Fellow Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fa11y.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483144603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=mFzv2K0RssmeCKhfgyhxf%2B08FSMVdgOdXAy48TZnRuI%3D&reserved=0 The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fwai%2Fapa&data=04%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfcfac86adc8b46c25cd808d969600aeb%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637656683483154596%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BdkI94IXyax%2BJiB2ZObWj6LYxriqH088YEcDi5o8QnI%3D&reserved=0 ________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. ________________________________
Received on Saturday, 28 August 2021 01:11:28 UTC