Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

+1. 

Regards,
Srinivasu Chakravarthula | Informatica | @CSrinivasu
Sent from my iPhone

> On 16-Feb-2017, at 22:21, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> +1 for compromise position
> 
> P
> 
>> On 16/02/2017 16:34, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>> AGWG’ers,
>> We have heard an increased number of requests that we ensure the WCAG
>> 2.1 FPWD will be released before CSUN in order to keep in line with the
>> Charter, which specified a February date. Concerns cited include that we
>> will open the group to criticism if we miss the deadline (the
>> counter-concern is that the group would be open to criticism if the SC
>> are perceived to be poorly-vetted) and that we really need additional
>> outside feedback on many items and we won’t get that until we have a
>> public review draft.
>> 
>> Our feeling is that there are three factors under consideration, and
>> that we can only satisfy two of these:
>> 
>> 1. Deliver the FPWD on time
>> 2. Deliver the FPWD with SC that are well-vetted by the WG
>> 3. Deliver the FPWD with a large number of the proposed SC
>> 
>> The Chairs and Michael feel like we need to consider a compromise position.
>> 
>> We are asking the group to provide quick feedback on the question
>> of whether people would approve the incorporation of a selection of SC
>> from each TF into a FPWD draft provided that we mark the SC with a note
>> that indicates that the SC is in a proposal stage and has not reached WG
>> consensus, but that we would welcome feedback on the SC to help the
>> group refine them further.
>> 
>> If this were to happen, the chairs would prepare a review draft with ~8
>> new SC from each TF, and then we would have a survey sent out tomorrow
>> that would provide a way for WG members to provide feedback on each SC,
>> and assuming that there aren’t major objections (due to a SC not meeting
>> the SC requirements in a profound and unresolvable way) then we would
>> include each SC in the draft.
>> 
>> This is a change, and it will require compromise for everyone. This
>> requires that the group members are willing to put out a draft that
>> explicitly states that it includes non-consensus items.
>> 
>> What do people think? If we are going to do this we will need to move
>> quickly.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>> 
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>> Adobe
>> 
>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk

> 
> 
> -- 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> 
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> 

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:53:52 UTC