Re: Draft for process updates

Hi Katie,

I would rather gather everyone's feedback initially, we will then get a wide view. Whereas long comment threads may put people off from making similar points.

To do a non-private comment you'll need to wait for the survey. But one of the methods is email so as long as we can tell the topic is, and it is before the end of the window then it  will be included.

Kind regards,

Alastair

Sent from my phone, apologies for typos.

________________________________
From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:12 pm
To: Michael Gower
Cc: Alastair Campbell; WCAG
Subject: Re: Draft for process updates

Alastair,

This is important. Thank you. Can we respond here, or should we wait for the channels you described?

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 1:52 PM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> wrote:
Thanks for initiating this, Alastair. The 18-month deliverable window was an interesting experience, and I suspect all of us have a lot of lessons learned we could inject into improving the process.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
To:        WCAG group <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Date:        2018-07-16 08:21 AM
Subject:        Draft for process updates
________________________________



Hi everyone,



Now that WCAG 2.1 is complete and we've had a bit of time to decompress, we want to take a look at how we should work on what's next. For WCAG 2.1 we set up a structured process to try to help us do the work efficiently and fairly. Key aspects of this were documented in the Decision Policy and the Acceptance Criteria for SC. This process was important to the delivery of WCAG 2.1 on time, but we know some people were unhappy with aspects of it. In this space between projects we want to take a look at how we can evolve the process.



We’re proposing a methodical approach to make sure we have all the thoughts about process in front of us, and then come up with changes to the process that enable us to best address the various concerns. The suggestion is:



1)30 July to 24 August - open a formal input window for people to express their thoughts about process. Because some thoughts may be sensitive, it is possible to make confidential input. Channels we are setting up include:



  *   A Web-Based Survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/processfeedback/
  *   Email to group-ag-chairs@w3.org<mailto:group-ag-chairs@w3.org>,  which is private to chairs but not anonymous
  *   Private contact with any of Andrew, Alastair, or Michael
  *   Private contact with Judy or Philippe
  *   Private contact with ombudspeople listed at https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#ombuds



Note that the general outcome of private conversations will need to be shared with chairs in order to discuss solutions, but efforts will be made to preserve anonymity. To be solutions-focused, problem descriptions should be accompanied by solutions proposals which consider the effect of proposals on other participants and issues.



2)27 August - 14 September: Chairs review input and proposal for changes to process. This will require processing of confidential input and balancing various goals, so needs to be done initially in a small forum.



3)17 September: Begin discussing process proposal with WG and refining, potentially returning to chairs for restructuring if needed.



4)9 October: Semi-final version of process developed.



5)22 - 23 October (TPAC): Final refinements and initiate CfC to support the process.



Note that we don't expect this to result in a perfect process, just an improved one. We can't anticipate every contingency, interpretation of the process, etc., and it won't be possible to fix all problems, as some may require resources we don't have or conflict with other priorities. We have to recognize that not all people will be happy about all things, but we will try to come up with the best net benefit.



Also note that this is about process, and does not directly address work priorities for the WG, such as the question of WCAG 2.2 vs Silver which is a separate discussion. We also are limited in changes we can make to issues impacted by external influences, such as charter, timeline, participant and chair selection, and relationship to external organizations, so issues related to those might have to be spun off to longer-term exploration.



We will begin discussing this proposal in the 17 July meeting, and hopefully in a couple weeks can begin this work.



Kind regards,



-Alastair



--



www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>/ @alastc