Update wcag-ruleset-review-process.md #515
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WilcoFiers
force-pushed
the
review-process-update-2
branch
from
9196aa0
to
133e508
Compare
tbostic32
reviewed
Mar 24, 2021
tbostic32
reviewed
Mar 24, 2021
johnhix
reviewed
Mar 25, 2021
daniel-montalvo
previously requested changes
Mar 25, 2021
wcag-ruleset-review-process.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The ACT Task Force will send a request for change to a rule provider as a result of either public feedback or an annual review. If the rule provider does not respond within two months, the ACT Task Force will assume the rule is no longer actively maintained. The ACT Task Force will send at least 2 reminders before concluding the rule is not maintained. If a rule is not maintained, the ACT Task Force will look for another organization who might be willing to maintain the rule. If the original rule provider wishes to resume maintenance of the rule, this will only be accepted with the permission of the active rule provider. | ||
| For the ACT Task Force agenda, public feedback will be prioritised over review of proposed rules. This ensures responsiveness to the wider community. The ACT Task Force should respond to questions within 5 work days. This may be a reply which indicates when an answers is expected. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| For the ACT Task Force agenda, public feedback will be prioritised over review of proposed rules. This ensures responsiveness to the wider community. The ACT Task Force should respond to questions within 5 work days. This may be a reply which indicates when an answers is expected. | |
| For the ACT Task Force agenda, public feedback will be prioritised over review of proposed rules. This ensures responsiveness to the wider community. The ACT Task Force should respond to questions within 5 work days. This may be a reply which indicates when an answer is expected. |
wcag-ruleset-review-process.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Questions the ACT Task Force can answer will be responded to directly. Questions that may require updates to a rule will be forwarded to the rule provider, including a proposal from the ACT Task Force on how to resolve the question. If the rule provider uses the proposal without additional changes, the rule will be updated without having to go through the review process. The rule provider should still apply their own review process to the change. If a different solution is taken, or additional changes are made, the update will have to go through the review process. | ||
| 2. If AG requests editorial changes, a [drafts proposal](#1-draft-proposal) is created. Once merged, the updated rule is republished on the WAI website with the "proposal" indicator removed. This skips the implementations or validation steps. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 2. If AG requests editorial changes, a [drafts proposal](#1-draft-proposal) is created. Once merged, the updated rule is republished on the WAI website with the "proposal" indicator removed. This skips the implementations or validation steps. | |
| 2. If AG requests editorial changes, a [draft proposal](#1-draft-proposal) is created. Once merged, the updated rule is republished on the WAI website with the "proposal" indicator removed. This skips the implementations or validation steps. |
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
Jym77
reviewed
Mar 25, 2021
annethyme
reviewed
Mar 25, 2021
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an "outsider" to what has been discussed on the process in this round, it looks really good, well-described and with one relatively easy to understand process from draft rule to official publication. Well done!
The only more general questions I have after intitially reading this is where the boundary between CG and TF is? And these "liaisons" where do they come from? (I unfortunately don't have time to read through another time to see if I could actually find the answers in the text, if reading more carefully).
I have noted down a few editorial comments as well.
wcag-ruleset-review-process.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Much of the tasks in this process are delegated to ACT Task Force, which is a sub-group of AGWG. ACT TF carries out initial review and prepares proposals for AGWG, which has the final say as the maintainer of WCAG and the authoritative body for interpretation. | ||
|
|
||
| Organizations and individuals, **rule providers**, can submit rules to be added to the WCAG Ruleset. Submitted rules must conform to the ACT Rules Format 1.0 specification and be accompanied by real-life implementations (specific criteria detailed later in this document). **Rule providers are expected to only contribute complete rules, as accurate as the rule providers can possibly make them.** | ||
| The ACT TF does this work in close collaboration with the ACT Rules Community Group through regular joint meetings. Any other groups interested to contribute rules to the WCAG ruleset should contact the co-facilitator(s) of the ACT Task Force. The ACT publication process is designed to publish high-quality ACT rules to the W3C website. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is "interested to contribute" correct, og should it be "interested in contributing"?
I at least found it a bit hard to read.
Found this on the subject (https://jakubmarian.com/interested-in-doing-vs-interested-to-do-in-english/):
“Interested to” can be used only with verbs of perception and “knowing”, such as:see, hear, read, learn, know, find out, …
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
Co-authored-by: daniel-montalvo <49305434+daniel-montalvo@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Trevor R. Bostic <32486143+tbostic32@users.noreply.github.com>
WilcoFiers
commented
Mar 25, 2021
Co-authored-by: daniel-montalvo <49305434+daniel-montalvo@users.noreply.github.com>
maryjom
reviewed
Mar 29, 2021
wcag-ruleset-review-process.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Organizations and individuals, **rule providers**, can submit rules to be added to the WCAG Ruleset. Submitted rules must conform to the ACT Rules Format 1.0 specification and be accompanied by real-life implementations (specific criteria detailed later in this document). **Rule providers are expected to only contribute complete rules, as accurate as the rule providers can possibly make them.** | ||
| Rule writing, reviewing, approving, and maintaining is a joint work between the ACT TF and the ACT Rules Community Group through regular joint meetings. Any other groups interested in contributing rules to the WCAG ruleset should contact the co-facilitator(s) of the ACT Task Force. The ACT publication process is designed to publish high-quality ACT rules to the W3C website. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest "...joint work effort between..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless a new co-facilitator was found, "co-facilitators" should be "facilitator."
maryjom
reviewed
Mar 29, 2021
wcag-ruleset-review-process.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Annual Review | ||
| 3. If AG requests non-editorial, the liaison is tasked to create a [draft proposal](#1-draft-proposal). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should say "...non-editorial changes..."
WilcoFiers
commented
Apr 8, 2021
WilcoFiers
commented
Apr 8, 2021
daniel-montalvo
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2021
Co-authored-by: daniel-montalvo <49305434+daniel-montalvo@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
How this improves the process
The proposed process is different from the current ACT rule review process in the following ways:
The ACT Rules community group website is dropped. Rules are published directly to the WAI website, but with an indication that the rule is "proposed". Implementation tracking too is done on the WAI website. Any guidance on rule writing, process descriptions, and the definition of done is used directly in the github repository.
ACT TF members will have an active role in updating rules. In their review, TF members propose changes. Instead of handing feedback to the rule author, the liaison is responsible for drafting any necessary changes themselves.
The validation process now involves both members from the TF and the CG, instead of being exclusive to the community group.
Instead of having two separate but connected processes, one managed by the CG and the other by the TF, a single process exists that is maintained by the TF.
There is no longer a separate CFC step in the Task Force. The survey is essentially the CFC; and not answering the survey is akin to not responding on a CFC.
The "final call" step in the CG is renamed to "Call for review", as this step is no longer the "final" step in the process.