- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:57:47 -0400
- To: AlastairCampbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxGkCytyyGwu=BA2=76AYLW+5bGMGCu5U+PizOV2uhwU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
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 >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 16 July 2018 19:58:22 UTC