Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

Laura says

> Something to be aware of is that we do have one Ad Hoc SC proposal [2] /
Pull Request [3] that isn't associated with any Task Force. I am managing
it and it is on the February 7 survey.

This is also true for Issue #2, Pull Request # 112
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/112
Change of content.

It was vetted early and received almost unanimous acceptance. I am the
manager of that. I think it belongs in the draft. It is mature and meets
all of the requirements for an SC.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Andrew and all,
>
> +1 for comprise.
>
> 8 SCs should be plenty for the LVTF as we only have 7 proposals under
> consideration [1]. Of those, only 4 have existing Pull Requests.
>
> Something to be aware of is that we do have one Ad Hoc SC proposal [2]
> / Pull Request [3] that isn't associated with any Task Force. I am
> managing it and it is on the February 7 survey.
>
> I agree with David's suggestion that the FPWD have a link to the
> corresponding Pull Request to see the understanding and the rational,
> benefits, techniques etc...  If managers complete that information in
> the first comment on the PR they are able to keep it updated
> themselves. They don't have to bother the person who filed the
> original issue do it for them.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Tracking_
> Success_Criteria_Progress
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/18
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/96
>
>
> On 2/16/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>