RE: publish WCAG2ICT as a W3C Statement instead of a WG Note?

I thought statements were more for Position Papers or such.   WCAG2ICT was commissioned by the Access Board and others to provide guidance or our opinion on IF and HOW WCAG might be used for broader ICT

Specifically it was to answer the question  (can WCAG apply if you just substitute     "non-web content" (or e-document) and "software" for  Web pages and have them apply.

So I THINK that we should keep it as a technical report or note - rather than as a position statement. 

But I am interested in hearing why making it a statement was suggested.     
It just seems to me to be different than a statement at this point

Gregg


> On Oct 3, 2022, at 6:39 PM, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> (Shadi) Whether we might publish WCAG2ICT as a W3C Statement instead of a WG Note? If so, might be useful to list this as either in scope or out of scope, to avoid this question coming up again in the future.
>  
> Mary Jo: IMO, this is a possibility. Need to have that conversation with the TF leadership to determine what would it require to be published as a W3C statement. Personally, I’m unfamiliar with that type of document and what it would entail to become a W3C statement. If it requires a lot more time and effort, doing so might be delayed to get a Note published in time for use in regulatory work. We could add to the work statement that there is the potential for this to eventually become a W3C statement.
>  
> Do others have thoughts or concerns with this being published as a W3C Statement?  Here’s a link to a description of a W3C Statement <https://www.w3.org/standards/types#STMT> vs. Working Group Note <https://www.w3.org/standards/types#NOTE>. Please weigh in.
>  
> If there are no concerns, we could add to the in-scope a bullet that says:
> Seeking W3C endorsement to publish the WCAG2ICT document as a W3C Statement (a form of W3C Technical Report)
>