[CfC] Stick with Proposed Impact Framework

[TzviyaSiegman]

In 5 Feb meeting, we discussed using the proposed impact framework vs a variation that identifies "quantifiable" guidelines. We propose to move forward with the impact framework as is (especially given the discussed nuances of what is actually quantifiable in this context). Please 👍 , 👎. Several people already 👍 in the meeting.
If you would like to provide an explanation, please do so in the comments below.

[fershad]

I've not seen the meeting recording yet, so lack some context.

@TzviyaSiegman there's some feedback in #178 @systemstree which I'd like to incorporate into the framework. Specifically #178 (comment)

If a guideline shows no impact for a given category, why don't we use the "No impact" rating (scored as 0)? There may be cases where a guideline or Success Criterion fails to produce any change within a given category. What is the recommended approach in such situations? I propose using either "No impact" or "Zero impact" in such cases.

Hoping I can get through with those updates early next week.

[AlexDawsonUK]

Another update that will be required @fershad. I just noticed that since the overlaps and duplication were taken care of, we have fewer guidelines, and where merges occur, their impact may need to be adjusted.

The PR with the list of where changes occur is here, with the most recent version of the spec being the best source for working out the current state of things.

Apologies, I thought I let you know that the update had launched but there was so much going on during the pre-holiday rush it must have escaped me! If you don't have time, I'm happy to adjust the data prior to importing into the JSON API as required.