#1077: [ig/wai] WAI IG recharter
Discussions
Log in to see TAG-private discussions.
Discussed
Apr 28, 2025 (See Github)
Max: No particular concern. They added a commitment to follow the TAG design principles. Check with Matthew.
Resolve as satisfied as long as Matthew is happy.
Marcos: Checked the mailing list, and it looks healthy.
Discussed
May 19, 2025 (See Github)
Max: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/664 - we found that there is potential wording that needs to be clarified… membership requirements. I have filed an issue in the charter draft… if no other comments I think we can close … our issue. Also asked Matthew’s opinion. If he has further comments we can keep open.
Hadley: your comment is pretty w3c process related…
Max: yes.
Hadley: some discussion in the private repo. Jeffrey had some comments about too many a11y group… maybe fold this into APA? This is related out our discussion yesterday in breakout B, too many review bodies for accessiblity
Torgo: right, it’s the flip side. We don’t want people to think that the TAG is an accessibility review, the whole point of the checklist is to work out if you need an accessibility review. I wouldn’t want the TAG to add an accessibility review to our design review process, because that would be counterproductive. If someone is coming to W3C ans asking for accssibility review, it needs to be clear where they go. TAG is not the right place for that, they should go to APA
Hadley: right
Torgo: if they’ve already done an accessibility review and they come to TAG review for architecture review or horizontal review, and they come across our accessibility checklist, they should be able to say "I've already done this.” We wouldn’t want them to do it again.
But I think that’s separate to this review.
Hadley: yes, except that I think Jeffrey is bringing them together.
Torgo: ok, let’s revisit at plenary.
revisit at the plenary
Discussed
May 19, 2025 (See Github)
Max: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/664 - we found that there is potential wording that needs to be clarified… membership requirements. I have filed an issue in the charter draft… if no other comments I think we can close … our issue. Also asked Matthew’s opinion. If he has further comments we can keep open.
Hadley: your comment is pretty w3c process related…
Max: yes.
Hadley: some discussion in the private repo. Jeffrey had some comments about too many a11y group… maybe fold this into APA? This is related out our discussion yesterday in breakout B, too many review bodies for accessiblity
Torgo: right, it’s the flip side. We don’t want people to think that the TAG is an accessibility review, the whole point of the checklist is to work out if you need an accessibility review. I wouldn’t want the TAG to add an accessibility review to our design review process, because that would be counterproductive. If someone is coming to W3C ans asking for accssibility review, it needs to be clear where they go. TAG is not the right place for that, they should go to APA
Hadley: right
Torgo: if they’ve already done an accessibility review and they come to TAG review for architecture review or horizontal review, and they come across our accessibility checklist, they should be able to say "I've already done this.” We wouldn’t want them to do it again.
But I think that’s separate to this review.
Hadley: yes, except that I think Jeffrey is bringing them together.
Torgo: ok, let’s revisit at plenary.
revisit at the plenary
Discussed
May 26, 2025 (See Github)
Matthew: This isn't in the right place, shouldn't this be in w3c/strategy?
DanA: TAG sometimes does charter reviews, we usually don't post to the strategy repo.
Matthew: Yves sometimes does it in our behalf
https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/441
Matthew: There is a label in that repo that says TAG review completed, which we can use.
DanA: Any other concerns? Jeffrey raised the concern that there are many a11y groups, and its hard for Chromium to know which one to turn to
... think we wanted to circle back with you
... also relates to our a11y checklist that should point people in the right direction
Matthew: Works for me. This is an IG. Changed to our checklist should mitigate the problem that people don't know to which group to turn to.
DanA: Can Yves post that feedback or can you directly leave it there?
Matthew: Will take care of it.
OpenedApr 3, 2025
This issue was created because the 'horizontal review requested' label was added to https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/441
This review is requested prior to the Advisory Committee Review.
Charter Review
Charter
Diff from charter template
Diff from previous charter
Chair dashboard
What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.
Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label Horizontal review requested to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. @@ToDo: Also add a card for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.
Communities suggested for outreach
None at this time.
Known or potential areas of concern
None at this time.
This is request for an extension of the existing charter so we can propose a new charter. We don't expect any substantive changes to that charter.
Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...)
https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues?q=in%3Atitle%20ig%2Fwai
Anything else we should think about as we review?
The new charter extends the group for three years and aligns with the latest charter template. There are no other material changes.