RE: Even for Note-track? Re: CFC - Standing permission to publish Working Drafts of COGA Gap Analysis

Note track documents *should* contain changelogs according to process 2018 so I don’t think this is an unreasonable ask.



From: Michael Cooper [] 
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:43 PM
To:; Andrew Kirkpatrick <>; WCAG <>
Subject: Even for Note-track? Re: CFC - Standing permission to publish Working Drafts of COGA Gap Analysis


I need to point out that the COGA Roadmap and Gap Analysis is not a spec - it's a Note-track document. Therefore I don't think it should be held to the practices of specs. Change logs are great in specs, and in ARIA we use them even without standing consent to publish on the books. But Note-track documents are often edited in less discrete chunks than specs, making it hard to make a meaningful change log. To ensure there is WG review, we explicitly plan for review opportunity and explicit WG consensus before transition to Note status, so I don't think things will sneak past the WG long-term. It is certainly possible to put a link to the github commit  history in the document, which people who really want to track its evolution can use. But if the WG doesn't support a standing consent to publish over this issue, the TF will have to ask for WG approval every time it wants to publish a draft, which will be more burden on all of us and more bureaucracy than I feel is needed for a Note-track document. 

Given all that, is it really needed to have a change log in this Note-track document to get consent for standing Working Draft publication authority? 



On 01/02/2018 1:12 PM, Léonie Watson wrote:


In the absence of a CFC that summarises the changes between updates, there needs to be a changelog in the spec that makes it easy for WG members to ascertain what's changed for themselves. Currently the spec doesn't have such a thing. 

On 01/02/2018 17:15, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: 

Call For Consensus — ends Monday February 5th at 12:30pm Boston time. 

The AGWG discussed a decision to grant standing permission for the COGA Task Force to publish updated working drafts of their Gap Analysis. 

The First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of their Gap Analysis is available here: HYPERLINK "" 

Please note there is a concurrent CfC on this same question in the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group (APA WG). Members of both groups are asked to respond on both CfCs. 

Call minutes: HYPERLINK "" 

If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline. 



Andrew Kirkpatrick 

Group Product Manager, Accessibility 






Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 23:18:06 UTC