Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Do we keep Privacy and Accessibility Groups? #45

Closed
mmccool opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #50
Closed

Do we keep Privacy and Accessibility Groups? #45

mmccool opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 7 comments · Fixed by #50
Assignees
@mmccool
Labels
Propose Closing WG New Charter Plans 2023

Comments

@mmccool
Copy link
Contributor

mmccool commented Feb 16, 2023

not technically needed to mention, since wide review groups
This was referenced Feb 16, 2023
Closed
Closed
Merged
@mmccool
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmccool commented Feb 20, 2023 •
edited
Loading

I made two PRs for two possible solutions to this issue, for us to discuss:

  1. Remove PING and A11Y groups #49 - remove mention of other Privacy or A11y groups.
  2. Modify A11Y group desc #50 - update description of A11y group to parallel privacy and emphasize "in addition to horizontal review".

We should merge at most one of the above. I am in favor of merging #50 myself.

After that we should merge #53 to clean up a related to do (easiest if we merge #50).

@mmccool mmccool self-assigned this Feb 20, 2023
@mmccool mmccool mentioned this issue Feb 20, 2023
Closed
@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

I am strongly in favour of not removing them and having better cooperation. There are a couple of features in the TD that needs this kind of collab. Also, onboarding topic will definitely involve some privacy concerns and getting their review after 2 years seems too long.

@mmccool
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmccool commented Feb 21, 2023

Updated text, but we still want to discuss with APA and PING whether these are appropriate, and whether the text is the right text.

@mmccool mmccool reopened this Feb 21, 2023
@mmccool
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmccool commented Mar 2, 2023 •
edited
Loading

I have sent emails to both PING and APA asking for their reviews and input, directing them back to this issue.

@michael-n-cooper
Copy link
Member

Response to APA ping from @matatk anticipating comment soon.

@mmccool
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmccool commented Mar 15, 2023

  • Got feedback from APA that they are ok with current text
  • Have not heard from PING
  • Note that there are no specific work items for APA, however

@mmccool
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmccool commented Mar 15, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Propose: keep current text explicitly mentioning PING and APA, then see what additional feedback we get during review.

@mmccool mmccool closed this as completed Mar 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@mmccool mmccool

Labels
Propose Closing WG New Charter Plans 2023
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
3 participants
@michael-n-cooper @mmccool @egekorkan