Re: WCAG 2.x backlog meeting: usual agenda

RE the one tiny change to process: I disagree with 3 out of the 4 that were moved directly to Ready for Approval and have moved them back to Drafted. (They're all my own PRs; I'm keeping myself honest here.)

I _especially_ disagree with skipping Drafted for #4857, as this affects the Recommendation itself and would likely need to be listed as errata (even though it only affects title text) - something we can discuss on the backlog call. I added the ErratumRaised label to it for this reason. Something with that label should likely never skip Drafted.

The other two I'm moving back have visible effects on informative content, and IIRC one of them (the blockquote styles) may have been previously discussed on a TF call when it was first discovered.

Historically, the only time I ever skip the TF is when something only impacts the build system, and then either has no visible change, or only changes that don't affect content that the TF or WG might have opinions on.

--Ken

On Thursday, January 15, 2026 3:27:55 PM Eastern Standard Time Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Working through our usual board https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56:
> 
> * Review "For discussion" items
> * Review ‘Drafted’ items - either:
>    * Move back to In progress, with more work to do; or
>    * Move to Ready for approval, if there is general agreement the issue 
> is sufficiently resolved; or
>    * Leave in Drafted, if discussion was not concluded satisfactorily.
> * Review if there are pressing "To do" items
> * Time permitting, items of interest to participants, including open 
> discussions. For instance:
>    * Check if people working on "In progress" items need help
> 
> Meeting information
> https://www.w3.org/groups/tf/wcag2x-backlog/calendar/
> 
> Note one tiny change to process that I'd like to trial: for changes that 
> are effectively just under-the-hood / technical (that Ken does for the 
> most part), I wonder if it makes sense to still mark them as being part 
> of WCAG 2.x backlog, but to then move them straight to "Ready for 
> approval" when ready (and then before the next AGWG message, merge them) 
> - i.e. no need to even discuss them in our group, unless the author 
> feels it's something that could do with a second opinion. For this week, 
> there's 4 already in "Ready for approval" of that nature. Suggest that 
> members of the TF skim over these before the meeting, and bring up 
> anything that they think might be controversial/need a bit more 
> discussion first.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 15 January 2026 20:44:21 UTC