AG process

EARLY DRAFT - Please Use Newest Version

The current version of this process is at: WCAG 3 Maturity Labeling Process 31 May 2022

WCAG 3.0 Process Proposal (DRAFT 11 Nov 2021)

Documents

WCAG 3 Schedule to manage the overall work. This will include:
- Topics raised in meetings and issues mapped to milestones
- Links to issues
Gihub to manage issues, including milestone assignments that map to the schedule.
Editors draft / Sandbox to show the early work and direction to specific audiences. The Editor's draft will show Placeholder, Exploratory, Developing, Refining, and Mature content with labels and notes. A filter will be available that will allow the document to be filtered by stage of maturity and to see it without the notes. The editor's draft will include a warning about the changing nature of content and an explanation of the filter.
Working draft to show progress to the public. This will include Refining and Mature stages.

Labeling Documents

We will apply labels that indicate the writing stage to each section of the Editor's draft and Working draft.

The labels we will use are below along with criteria for use with informative and normative content that goes into the main TR document (https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/). Informative support documentation has a light process outlined at the bottom of the page.

1. Placeholder:

We know we need content but do not yet know what it should look like
Likelihood to change: Definite
Goals of this stage: Subgroup identifies needs and possible directions, Ensure content phrasing is appropriate to placeholder stage
Requirements to get to this stage: Asynchronous working group agreement if possible. If asynchronous agreement is not possible, working group agreement (meeting/survey).
Sub-group: Identifies the placeholder need and name.
Working group: If agreed, placeholder content is added to the sandbox version of the Editor's Draft.
Public: Will see the placeholders in the sandbox version of Editor's Draft.

2. Exploratory:

We are exploring one or more possible directions for this content
Likelihood to change: Very likely
Goals of this stage: Document direction(s)
Requirements to get to this stage: Working group agreement (meeting/survey).
Sub-group: Develops a proposal, which could include options, prototype(s), Pros and Cons. The working group discusses the proposal, then it would be developed into a Pull Request (PR).
Working group: Discusses the proposal, and if it becomes a PR, it would be surveyed. If the working group does not agree, the content goes back to the sub-group. If agreed, exploratory content is added to the sandbox version of the Editor's Draft.
Public: Will see the placeholders in the sandbox version of Editor's Draft. The subgroup can reach out to key stakeholders to review exploratory content using the Sandbox filter.

3. Developing:

AG has high confidence in the direction and some confidence in the details
Likelihood to change: Details likely to change, overall direction unlikely to change
Goals of this stage: Work out details and address open questions
Requirements to get to this stage: Working group agreement (meeting/survey)
Sub-group: Revises the PR.
Working group: Survey to review the PR. If the working group does not agree, the content goes back to the sub-group. If the working group agrees, the content will go into the Editor's Draft labeled as "Developing".
Public: Can review in the Editor's Draft.

4. Refining:

AG has high confidence in the direction and moderate confidence in the details
Likelihood to change: Details may change, overall direction unlikely to change
Goals of this stage: Get wide stakeholder feedback
Requirements to get to this stage: AG agreement (meeting/survey)
Sub-group: Revises the PR, addressing issues raised at the Developing stage.
Working group: Working group agreement (meeting/survey) required to go to editors draft. If the working group does not agree, the content goes back to the sub-group. If agreed, it is CFCed for going into the Working draft marked as "Refining"
Public: Can review in the Editor's Draft and Working Draft.

5. Mature:

Content is believed to be ready to become a W3C Recommendation
Likelihood to change: Unlikely to change
Goals of this stage: Refine and finalize
Requirements to get to this stage: AG Consensus and CFC
Sub-group: Revises the PR, addressing issues raised at the Mature stage.
Working group: Survey to review the PR. If the working group does not agree, the content goes back to the sub-group. If agreed, it is CFCed for going into the Working draft marked as "Mature".
Public: Can review the Working Draft, when updated this version will get wide reviews promoted to the public.

Additional Points

Decisions will be made using the consensus process as outlined in the AG Decision Policy and W3C Process Document.
Adding content marked with lower maturity levels will have less strict requirements than adding content with higher levels. When adding exploratory, developing, and refining content the group will include editor's notes on what issues need to be addressed before moving to the next level. If exploratory content includes more than one option, the group will include editor's notes with pros and cons of each option.
A CFC is not required to add Placeholder, Exploratory or Developing content to the Editor's draft - Only, consensus in a meeting is required. Proposals can be added to the Editor's Draft / Sandbox when some members of the group disagree, but the objections would be noted in the associated Editor's note as part of the items required to be resolved before progressing.
The official Working Draft will have the more mature content (i.e. "Refining" and above). The Editors Draft /Sandbox will include everything. Both documents will have labels.
In order to be included in the final Candidate Recommendation (CR), content must be at the Mature level. By default, anything else that has not reached Mature will be removed before moving on to CR.
Content at the Placheolder, Exploratory and Developing levels can be removed and changed by consensus in a meeting. Content at the Refining and Mature levels require a CFC to be removed or changed.

Process Overview for Content going into the TR Document

Process Diagram

If you prefer a visual representation, you can view a workflow diagram on slide 2 but a more detailed text description is below.

Step 1: Placeholders

A subgroup or the working group identifies placeholder content.
The working group reviews the proposed placeholder content and approves it through working group agreement.
Editors add the placeholder content to the editor's draft with the sandbox filter.
A subgroup then begins developing one or more proposals to address the placeholder content.
If the subgroup does not bring content to the working group for discussion for 6 months, then it will be removed from the draft.

Step 2: Exploratory

The subgroup develops proposals for review by the working group. This is done using wikis, google docs or whatever the subgroup finds useful.
Proposals may include various options, prototypes, pros, and cons
The subgroup will bring the proposal(s) to the working group for discussion and feedback after which they will refine the proposal. They can circle back with the working group if additional discussion is needed.
When ready, the subgroup will create a pull request (or request the editors do so) that integrates their proposal into the content. This PR will be marked as exploratory.
The chairs will send the PR to the working group through a survey and then discuss the results in the working group meeting.
If the working group agrees to add the content as exploratory, then the content will be added to the editor's draft with the sandbox filter. At the same time, an editor's note will be created that captures what is needed to move to the next level and issues that need to be resolved. If there are multiple options proposed, the pros and cons of each option will be included in the editor's note. The working group may also decide the content is mature enough to be added at a higher level.
The criteria for adding exploratory content should be relatively low, but if the working group believes it needs more work to be added as exploratory then it goes back to the subgroup for more work.
Once the content has been added to the editor's draft, the subgroup and/or editors will send it out to key stakeholders for review and content.
If the subgroup does not bring content to the working group for discussion for 6 months, then it will be removed from the draft.

Step 3 & 4: Developing and Refining

After feedback from key stakeholders has been received, the subgroup will use that and the feedback from the working group to refine the content in the draft.
When ready, the subgroup will create a pull request (or request the editors do so) that integrates their proposal into the content. This PR will be marked as developing or mature based on the criteria for the level.
The chairs will send the PR to the working group through a survey and then discuss the results in the working group meeting.
If the working group agrees to add the content as developing or refining, then the content will be added to the editor's draft. At the same time, an editor's note will be created that captures what is needed to move to the next level and issues that need to be resolved.
The criteria for adding content should be increasingly difficult, and if the working group believes it needs more work then it goes back to the subgroup for more work.
Once Refining content has been added to the editor's draft, it will go to CFC to be added to the working draft.

Step 5: Mature

The subgroup will use the feedback from the working group as well as any feedback from wide reviews (issues in Github) to refine the content in the draft.
When ready, the subgroup will create a pull request (or request the editors do so) that integrates their proposal into the content. This PR will be marked as Mature based on the criteria for the level.
The chairs will send the PR to the working group through a survey and then discuss the results in the working group meeting.
If the working group agrees to add the content as Mature, then the content will be added to the editor's draft.
Content added as Mature content should be publication-ready. If the working group believes it needs more work then it goes back to the subgroup for more work.
Once the content has been added to the editor's draft it will to CFC to be added to the working draft.

Exceptions

The working group may decide that certain Placeholder, Exploratory, or Developing content should be added to the working draft.
If the group decides to make an exception, the content will go to the CFC process before being added.

Terminology

CFC (Call for Consensus) - The process of emailing out a decision after working group agreement for the full email list to consider. The formal objection process is used.
Working group agreement - Agreement reached in a meeting or through an asynchronous method (see outstanding decisions below). Consensus will be used to reach working group agreements Concerns that can't be resolved will be noted as editor's notes.

Decisions that Still Need to Be Made

List the criteria/requirements in more detail for each level of content
Decide on an asynchronous method of making decisions that is accessible to all participants, including COGA
Decide on the best way to capture issues, needs, areas of discussion, and pros/cons on alternatives. Needs to be accessible and also link easily to Github issues.
Create a process for supporting documents
Decide on the text for the warning text on the Editor's Draft
Decide on approach to current content in the Editor's Draft
Finalize labels, particularly refining and mature