Re: CFC - COGA document split

+1
Detlev

> Am 28.11.2018 um 17:07 schrieb Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>:
> 
> This is a request from the Cognitive and Learning Disabilities (COGA) Task Force to both of COGA's parent WAI Working Groups, the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group, and the Accessible Guidelines (AG) Working Group.
>  
> This CfC seeks consensus to split the existing COGA Gap Analysis Working Draft publication into two separate note-track documents.
>  
> As work on the existing Gap Analysis document has progressed, what began as an Appendix has grown in import and size to the extent that COGA now believes our target audience for these documents is better served by two separate documents rather than a single document. That is the basis for this CfC.
>  
> If this Call for Consensus fails, no change will result.
>  
> If the Call for Consensus is approved:
>  
> 1. The existing COGA Gap Analysis document will be split into two separate note track documents as follows:
>  
> - Gap Analysis
> https://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/ <https://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/>
>  
> - A First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of "Making content usable for people with cognitive and learning disabilities" will be authorized:
> https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable/ <https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable/>
>  
> 2. Standing permission for COGA to publish updated working drafts will be authorized for both documents.
>  
> Please note that there is a 'Design Themes' section in the new document which has links to a third document. There is still discussion about the name and optimal disposition of that third document. Whether or not it eventually becomes an additional note track document is not part of this CfC.
>  
> ACTION TO TAKE
>  
> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though messages of support are certainly welcome.
>  
> If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later thanMidnight Boston Time on Tuesday 4th December.
>  
> IMPORTANT: If you are a member of both AG and APA you should vote on both CfCs. AG and APA need to determine whether a consensus exists independently of each other.
>  
> Thanking you for your attention on this question,
>  
> Alastair Campbell
> AG Co-Chair
>  
> Janina Sajka
> APA Chair