W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2018

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

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:59:29 -0500
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <62214357-1fc0-1ab3-5227-fa5bdc562db0@w3.org>
On 02/02/2018 12:27 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> So...
> I know that GitHub is the tool of choice these days at the W3C, but 
> here I *really* think that if we moved the editorial work over to a 
> wiki page at this point, that we'd have what we need. Wikis provide 
> the kind of historical change data that we're looking for here, and 
> once the heavy lifting is done, we could then move back to GitHub, (or 
> just publish the darned thing). I suspect it's simply a matter of 
> choosing the right tool for the job, rather than trying to pound 
> square pegs into star-shaped holes...
This proposal takes the discussion too far off the topic of the CfC, so 
if you want to discuss farther let's do it in a separate thread. For 
now, I'll just say that GitHub provides at least as rich a history as 
wiki, and the editorial load of taking content maintained in wikis and 
publishing as TR quality documents with iterative publications would be 
HUGE. If you wish to push back on that, please raise a separate 
discussion so the WG can consider outside the context of a relatively 
unrelated CfC. Michael
> My $0.05 Canadian.
> JF
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk 
> <mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote:
>     With HTML for example, we ask the Editors to add a bullet to the
>     changelog whenever they make a significant change to the spec. It
>     takes perhaps 2 minutes extra effort to do it.
>     I'd also argue that commit logs are not the most usable of things.
>     If you're used to working with Github it's ok, but my impression
>     is that many in this WG do not use Github regularly and so do not
>     have that level of familiarity.
>     On 02/02/2018 16:27, Michael Cooper wrote:
>         My personal view is that a link to github commit history is
>         sufficient to meet the spirit of the Process document advice
>         James referenced. For Rec-track stuff I support going further
>         with practices that have emerged. That said, if it's the will
>         of the WG to require an actively managed change log in order
>         to feel comfortable giving standing publication consent, then
>         that's the WG decision. I manage the change log for WCAG 2.1,
>         and it's a lot more work than it seems, so I am *not* prepared
>         to take that on for the COGA gap analysis. We will need to
>         ensure that the document editors accept this responsibility.
>         Once we sort that out hopefully we can move forward with a
>         decision. Michael
>         On 02/02/2018 6:54 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:
>             On 01/02/2018 22:43, Michael Cooper wrote:
>                 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.
>             Without a changelog you're expecting WG members to be able
>             to identify what's changed between one WD and the next.
>             If, as you say, the changes in this case are in "less than
>             discrete chunks", that means it'll be even harder to
>             quickly review what's changed.
>             The changelog doesn't need to be complicated. It just
>             needs to be a list of high level changes, plus links to
>             the relevant Github commits. For example:
>             "Section X updated to include Y + [link to Github commit]".
>             That way someone can review the changelog and decide
>             whether they want to review the change in detail (using
>             the commit log), or not.
>             Léonie.
>                 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?
>                 Michael
>                 On 01/02/2018 1:12 PM, Léonie Watson wrote:
>                     -1
>                     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:
>                         https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-coga-gap-analysis-20171207/
>                         <https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-coga-gap-analysis-20171207/>
>                         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:
>                         https://www.w3.org/2018/02/01-ag-minutes.html#item01
>                         <https://www.w3.org/2018/02/01-ag-minutes.html#item01>
>                         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.
>                         Thanks,
>                         AWK
>                         Andrew Kirkpatrick
>                         Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>                         Adobe
>                         akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>                         <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com
>                         <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
>                         http://twitter.com/awkawk
>                         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0
>                         <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0>>
>     -- 
>     @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Friday, 2 February 2018 17:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:22 UTC