[A11ybok] [a11yBoK] policy for invitations?

[Sina Bahram]

Quick note on tech:

I can provide any hosting resources, as well, so that hopefully puts to rest any questions on technology, as sometimes these
discussions get bogged down in such things, which I'll take the opportunity to agree with everyone else is hardly the crux of the
various issues we need to be concentrating on. I have no space constraints to operate under either.

Other issues:

I think that it would be nice to bound this discussion in terms of goals we wish to either establish, subsequently explore, and then
eventually achieve.

It seems like the first one is a methodology by which steering may occur in whatever structure arises from this collection of
individuals?

Take care,
Sina

Website: www.SinaBahram.com
Twitter: @SinaBahram

-----Original Message-----
From: a11ybok-bounces at a11ybuzz.com [mailto:a11ybok-bounces at a11ybuzz.com] On Behalf Of Ryan E. Benson
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:42 PM
To: A11yBOK Discussion List
Subject: Re: [A11ybok] [a11yBoK] policy for invitations?

> I think the first order of business on this particular list is for
> everyone on the list to do some self-exploration to determine if they
> are personally able to devote the time to an A11yBOK and qualified to
> take part in some way.  Regarding the time thing: Olivier's blog post
> makes a good point that this is an effort that would need funding.
> How much funding, funding for what & who obviously remains to be seen,
> but I'd expect for an effort like this to succeed that there would be
> some compensation for participating.
Would thinking about funding right now be a little be a bit premature,
unless we are wanting a society to get set up. Most of all the talk I
have seen, people are wanting the BOK to be hosted on Wikipedia, which
I am for. On Twitter, I said no to Wikipedia a few times, let me clear
that up by saying, that having the final product would be a great
idea. However, starting there is maybe not the best idea. My hosting
plan gives me "unlimited storage and bandwidth", I'll say I can give
~5gb of room, if this grows beyond that, my host may start asking
questions.

>  For me, personally, my
> employment arrangement with Deque basically means I'm unable to hold
> any pecuniary interest in any company or get any income from doing
> accessibility work, but I can't see them having any problem with me
> volunteering.
My rules are kind of similar, I cannot work on anything that will be
used for a bid on a contract. Since I don't think that would happen, I
am in the clear.


Olivier said:
> Nevertheless, there's a also a balance to find between "not enough" and
>"too many" participants, in order to remain productive. That's why I'm asking:
> what do you consider as appropriate regarding invitations of other participants?
Being somebody who has been wanting to get involved with stuff like
this for a while, I would say we should invite various people, and
established a board/core group. From there advertise some more. Karl,
I haven't been on mailman admin panel for a few years, can people be
set to as subscribers, versus able to talk? This could be useful for
people who just want to sit on the side, or may be just spinning
wheels.


--
Ryan E. Benson



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Karl Groves <karlgroves at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm delighted that this discussion is gaining momentum, since obviously,
>> more brains should foster more interesting ideas :-) Nevertheless, there's a
>> also a balance to find between "not enough" and "too many" participants, in
>> order to remain productive.
>> That's why I'm asking: what do you consider as appropriate regarding
>> invitations of other participants? I know at least one person who should be
>> a part of this, and I'm likely to receive requests from other people who'll
>> show high interest in this discussion.
>> So what would you recommend?
>> (Karl, as this is your initiative, I'll follow your rules if there's no
>> consensus).
>
> I don't consider this my initiative. I'm just happy to host the
> discussion. If this A11yBOK idea really takes off and becomes a formal
> effort, it will need to come from a number of people all willing to
> work together and it will be everyone's initiative. In that regard,
> maybe even this list needs to be temporary in nature while we flesh
> out the details of who would be involved, what they would do and how
> it would get done.
>
> In the first incarnation of this list, we saw a quick burst of
> interest and some discussion surrounding the A11yBOK and then the
> enthusiasm waned quickly.  That's fine because it meant that the
> general consensus was that the list participants were either
> unwilling/ unable to undertake the effort or didn't see it as
> logistically feasible at that time.
>
> I think the first order of business on this particular list is for
> everyone on the list to do some self-exploration to determine if they
> are personally able to devote the time to an A11yBOK and qualified to
> take part in some way.  Regarding the time thing: Olivier's blog post
> makes a good point that this is an effort that would need funding.
> How much funding, funding for what & who obviously remains to be seen,
> but I'd expect for an effort like this to succeed that there would be
> some compensation for participating.   For me, personally, my
> employment arrangement with Deque basically means I'm unable to hold
> any pecuniary interest in any company or get any income from doing
> accessibility work, but I can't see them having any problem with me
> volunteering.
>
> So everyone should examine their own situation to make sure they can
> dedicate what's needed to this. Stay on the list if you can do it and
> unsubscribe if you can't.  If you want to stick around to see what's
> going on and then decide later whether you do it, that's fine too.
> What something like this requires, IMO, are folks who (as John Foliot
> likes to put it) can pick up a shovel and start digging.
>
> The second order of business, IMO, should be for us to brainstorm
> funding opportunities.  This would also necessitate a discussion of
> scope, but I think both discussions probably should remain at a high
> level.  Discussions like this always tend to get too involved in the
> minutia.  From my perspective, the only consensus we've built so far
> is that we believe an A11yBOK needs to exist.   We still don't have a
> handle on anything else and I can't see anything done without funding.
>
> Karl
>
>
> --
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
>
> _______________________________________________
> A11ybok mailing list
> A11ybok at a11ybuzz.com
> http://a11ybuzz.com/mailman/listinfo/a11ybok_a11ybuzz.com

_______________________________________________
A11ybok mailing list
A11ybok at a11ybuzz.com
http://a11ybuzz.com/mailman/listinfo/a11ybok_a11ybuzz.com