- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:31:23 +0000
- To: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Worth noting here that the voting / CFC is aimed only at WG members on the GL list. Putting it on GitHub would likely lead to "randoms" voting as well, which then would require deduping/verifying votes? P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ / https://github.com/patrickhlauke / https://codepen.io/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ / https://www.deviantart.com/redux https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke ------ Original Message ------ From "Mike Gifford" <mike.gifford@civicactions.com> To "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com> Date 27/04/2023 16:00:03 Subject 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://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://civicactions.com/> | >>https://accessibility.civicactions.com >><https://accessibility.civicactions.com/> >> >>http://twitter.com/mgifford | http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford >>
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2023 15:31:32 UTC