Re: Draft for process updates

Sorry, didn't post to to the list. Reposting...

Thanks Alistair,

Then, I suggest as a process requirement: each company gets 1 vote on CfCs
and Rec Track consensus decisions. This prevents the outcome from being
skewed in favor of one company's desires. This was a requirement for WCAG
for much of its voting history. It prevents 'ganging-up', which happened
this last go-around.


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 3:19 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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
>> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
>> To:        WCAG group <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/*
>>    <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/processfeedback/>
>>    - Email to *group-ag-chairs@w3.org* <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*
>>    <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>