HTML AAM should remain a joint deliverable

[LJWatson]

Per the email from @richschwer, the ARIA WG would like the HTML AAM to remain a joint WP/ARIA WG deliverable.

Pinging @stevefaulkner @jasonkiss and @asurkov for input.

[stevefaulkner]

I agree

On Friday, 12 August 2016, Léonie Watson notifications@github.com wrote:

Per the email from @richschwer https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Aug/0121.html, the ARIA WG would like the HTML AAM to remain a joint WP/ARIA WG deliverable.

Pinging @stevefaulkner https://github.com/stevefaulkner @jasonkiss https://github.com/jasonkiss and @asurkov https://github.com/asurkov for input.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/133, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAzBExVEE7xy9SNy65-mQO0ZxGzTEzjPks5qfD-ogaJpZM4Ji7ZY .

Regards

SteveF Current Standards Work @W3C http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/

[jasonkiss]

Makes good sense to me.

On 13/08/2016, at 06:37, stevefaulkner notifications@github.com wrote:

I agree

On Friday, 12 August 2016, Léonie Watson notifications@github.com wrote:

Per the email from @richschwer https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Aug/0121.html, the ARIA WG would like the HTML AAM to remain a joint WP/ARIA WG deliverable.

Pinging @stevefaulkner https://github.com/stevefaulkner @jasonkiss https://github.com/jasonkiss and @asurkov https://github.com/asurkov for input.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/133, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAzBExVEE7xy9SNy65-mQO0ZxGzTEzjPks5qfD-ogaJpZM4Ji7ZY .

Regards

SteveF Current Standards Work @W3C http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/ — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[LJWatson]

One of the challenges of a joint deliverable is the administrative overhead it introduces for both WGs.

Either one WG needs to assume working responsibility for the deliverable (driving work forward etc.), or a TF has to be created so the responsibility is shared equally. WPWG prefers to work asynchronously, and with both ARIAWG and WPWG being incredibly busy, finding time (and chairs) for a TF would seem impractical.

The deliverable also has to go through the process motions in both WGs. This is a duplication of work across both WGs, and it often adds significantly to the time needed to progress a spec to Rec.

To this end, the WPWG chairs would like to offer to take the HTML AAM as a WPWG deliverable. We would of course expect the ARIAWG to be closely involved (and would be happy to include charter words to this effect), but it would push the admin overhead onto WPWG for the most part.

We think this addresses the point made by @richschwer (that the AAM should not be pushed off into accessibility space). We also hope it will send out a positive message across W3C.

[richschwer]

I am fine with WPWG owning it. However, it is a deliverable under the current aria working group charter: https://www.w3.org/2015/10/aria-charter.html I don't quite know what to do with that and I don't want to recharter over it.

[chaals]

As an individual, not a chair: What if we put it in the WebPlatform charter, and note a specific dependency on ARIA WG to be sure that whatever we do actually matches ARIA?

I agree that making you recharter for this would be silly, but it seems to me that this approach means that the spec gets done, gets reviewed by the right people - both WebPlatform and ARIA, and can get delivered.

[LJWatson]

Pinging @plehegar for confirmation that the approach outlined by @Chaals would work.

[plehegar]

If we publish only under the Web Platform WG, I think that will be fine. It does mean that the SOTD will not list the ARIA WG as co-owner and we wouldn't issue Call for Exclusions to the ARIA Members either. Is that fine?

[richschwer]

I think that is fine as long as we review the spec. There are references to the ARIA mapping spec. as planned.

[LJWatson]

Thanks @richschwer

@plehegar is this something the ARIA WG needs to confirm by CFC?

[richschwer]

Well I hope we can get more than a week to review it. It is a big document. CFCs are more than a week. ... I would like us to confirm via CFC

[plehegar]

I think @LJWatson CfC question was about the charter and not having it as a joint deliverable. Given that it's part of the ARIA charter, I think we need to make sure the ARIA WG is fine with the conclusion we reached here. Regarding "I hope we can get more than a week to review it", I really do hope that we can do way better than that. It's not appropriate to ask for wide review and give only one week. It should be one month or more imho unless the Group is willing to fast track their review.

[chaals]

Yeah, let us know what you think a reasonable approval time is and we should be able to do that. We can put it in the charter if you want to phrase it up, but I don't think it's an issue to negotiate whatever review time is needed for an actual review.

[LJWatson]

@plehegar yes, my question was whether the ARIA WG needs a CFC to agree that the HTML AAM becomes a Web Plat deliverable. @richschwer are you able to initiate that?

I quite agree that a week is insufficient time for wide review of a spec, and would certainly aim to allow reasonable time for the ARIA WG to review as the AAM moves through the process.

[richschwer]

I will bring it up at the ARIA Working Group Meeting. It will require a CFC from us.

[michael-n-cooper]

My thoughts on list: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Aug/0269.html

[plehegar]

both groups recently agreed that the best approach is to have the deliverable solely done under the responsibility of the Web Platform Working Group.