Re: Understanding dismay

Thanks for asking Andrew,

I’m sure this has been brought up before, but I’m not part of any other
group that does this. I’m part of lots of other groups.

Normally in tech projects people go to GitHub & give a Thumbs-Up if a vote
is needed. That becomes the default voting mechanism for many projects.

I could see the W3C setting up a simple link that allows logged in users to
record a yes/no on a particular decision.

I know that there are folks that don’t like GitHub. Like any tool, it isn’t
perfect. I know setting up online voting systems can be expensive and can
carry their own set of challenges.

But there is a lot of email discussions that take place on this list. It
clutters up a lot of folks inboxes. Adds to our cognitive load. Sure, it is
a lowest-common-denominator solution that works. However, how many people
does it drive away from the W3C? How many folks just filter the emails, and
become disengaged from the conversation.

I don’t know the answers to this. Maybe a hybrid option could work. Pushing
most conversations and discussions to GitHub, where many of us would find
it more useful, but allowing some folks to have some conversations in the
mailing list because that is their preference. It is all a bit awkward.

I figured that because I’m new I should ask this before I too become
accustomed to a pattern (that seems broken).

Mike


Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions
Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer
https://civicactions.com    |  https://accessibility.civicactions.com
http://twitter.com/mgifford |  http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford

On April 27, 2023 at 9:16:14 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick (akirkpat@adobe.com)
wrote:

Mike,

Can you explain why this process is dismaying?



FYI, we changed to using the CFC process which includes an extended period
of time for respondents around the world to have time to respond to
decisions without attending a call that may be at 2am for them. All of the
CFC responses are recorded in the W3C’s system for a permanent record.



Thanks,

AWK



Andrew Kirkpatrick

Director, Accessibility

Adobe



akirkpat@adobe.com

http://twitter.com/awkawk





*From: *Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com>
*Date: *Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:43 AM
*To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
*Subject: *Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation
*Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
*Resent-Date: *Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:42 AM



*EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments.*



+1 Thanks.

Also, a bit dismayed that we're voting via email.

Mike



On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:17 AM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <
rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:

+1



*From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
*Date: *Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:14 PM
*To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
*Subject: *CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation
*Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
*Resent-Date: *Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:12 PM



*CAUTION:* This email message has been received from an external source.
Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.

Hi everyone,



Call For Consensus — ends Tuesday 2nd April at 5pm Boston time.



The Working Group has agreed (in meetings) to re-start the Candidate
Recommendation stage for WCAG 2.2.



This CFC is to approve that transition into CR, including the changes made
since the last one.



There are updates to Target Size and Focus Appearance, which can be viewed
here:

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files



These two SCs will be marked ‘at risk’, with a fallback to the previous
versions. If that fall back is also not agreed, then it would result in
removal. (For Focus Appearance, the fallback would be the previous text at
AAA level.)
The fallbacks for ‘at risk’ are subject to approval from W3C management, we
would return to the group if it is not approved.



Minor changes since the last CR:

   - A non-normative change to Focus Not Obscured (adjusting the notes) was
   agreed: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3083/files
   - Accessibility Authentication had “(minimum)” added to the name:
   https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3132/files



If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
the CfC deadline.



Kind regards,



-Alastair



-- 



@alastc / www.nomensa.com








-- 



Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions

Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer

https://civicactions.com    |  https://accessibility.civicactions.com

http://twitter.com/mgifford |  http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford