Re: Fwd: Semi-regular WCAG repository question

It would be ideal for a pass through now to see if there are any minor normative changes that make sense to include as part of 2.2. But I think that window of opportunity is largely closed. Once 2.2 is out the door, hopefully there can be some more attention on this.

IMO a challenge is that one needs a fair bit of background to make good decisions. So we have to gather a group with enough depth to properly canvass, and that has the confidence of the WG to not only make good solutions, but to categorize those things in terms of their impact and ‘maturity’ such that the WG can rubber stamp a good chunk of the work with light scrutiny yet have its attention brought to those items which need a more thorough deep dive by the larger group.

It's a tough balance to achieve, but I agree we have to attend to this, particularly as we better understand the long path ahead for 3.0

Mike


From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:33 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Semi-regular WCAG repository question
Oops, meant to send to GL, rather than IG. Apologies.

P

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Semi-regular WCAG repository question
Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 12:17:45 +0000
Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 12:17:30 +0000
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Hey all,

I know focus has recently been on 2.2, of course, but in the meantime,
the amount of open issues (590) and pull requests (205) (let alone
branches (321)) on the WCAG repository is still at an almost
insurmountable number.

If I remember right, there's a sub-group looking at clearing WCAG
issues/PRs related to 2.0/2.1 meeting on Fridays (a group which I
unfortunately have no time to join due to scheduling clashes), but...
maybe an initial triage list of PRs that are worth expediting are the
ones marked as "Survey - Ready for"? There's 37 there, with the oldest
from 2019?

It may also be an idea, once these are worked through, to essentially do
a big "anything older than X years will be summarily closed, unless you
leave a comment about why it's still necessary" cut-off, for all
issues/PRs? and maybe a big review of which of the 321 branches are
actually still needed/relevant?

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/  | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/  | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke