Some thoughts on TF aims and how to reach them

Hey all,

following on from the very process-discussion-heavy session today, a few 
thoughts...

Historically, the 2.x backlog of issues (660) and pull requests (222) we 
have on https://github.com/w3c/wcag have been down to the 
less-than-dynamic/limber way the WG as a whole operates. Trying to get 
things surveyed/discussed by the entire WG, and getting consensus, has 
been a slow process, particularly while the focus has been on working on 
new SCs etc.

I had high hopes that with the backlog TF, we could "short-circuit" some 
of the inertia by having a smaller, more nimble group that can at least 
do the initial triage of issues/PRs. Sort things out into a few buckets, 
to at least try and get the backlog into a more manageable state.

For both pull requests and issues, in the first instance, review if 
they're still relevant ... I have no doubt that among the 660 issues and 
222 PRs currently on the repo there are things relating back to 2.0 or 
2.1 that are either never going to be addressed/changed, or that have 
since been clarified already elsewhere. If they're not relevant anymore, 
close them with a comment to that effect ("we believe this issue/PR is 
not relevant anymore and are closing it. please open a new issue/file a 
fresh PR if you feel that this is still a valid concern.")



If the PRs are still relevant, ascertain if they're editorial or 
substantive.

If they're editorial, and the group agrees they're editorial, earmark 
them as "we're going to merge this

-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Friday, 1 December 2023 18:07:49 UTC