John Plocher wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Each of the items above has things that touch multiple
>> consolidations, some projects which may be entirely unrelated to one
>> another, and potentially fairly disparate areas of interest within
>> the potential SIG.
>
> Can you expound on this thought? Do you see the distinction between
> SIG and Component as a good or bad thing?
I have no opinion there. To be fair, I sort of jumped in the middle of
this conversation, and haven't followed it fully.
>
> I'm confused by your list + statement here - if there was (say) an
> accessibility SIG, how do you see it fostering "projects which may be
> entirely unrelated to one another"?
Its more about fostering work which may actually be part of the work of
*other* projects. More below.
>
> Wouldn't all the projects fostered by the accessibility SIG be, by
> definition, related to accessibility?
Well, they'd be related to accessibility, but they might not share
interfaces, code, or engineers. A11Y for example, touches things like
CLIs, GUIs, plus adds a bunch of tools of its own. And it needs to
monitor the various other projects that are being delivered (e.g. nwam,
etc.) to make sure that they are conforming to the requirements for A11Y.
I.e. they are touching the work of different projects, broadly across a
lot of different project and consolidation boundaries.
They may also have some specific projects of their own -- e.g. on-screen
keyboard, text-to-speech renderers, etc.
-- Garrett
