Re: Re[2]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

Alastair,

We got here by throwing in the 'every two year update' idea just a short
time ago. (However, that idea may have been hovering in some minds a bit
longer)

That allowed people to provide breathing room, they thought - "oh, what we
can't get done in time  we'll push off to the next version. And let's make
the next version very soon, so those missed SC won't be too far behind
("wait, that's like agile, great, the AC will love it":....:-)

The *original* plan was a stable complete 2.1 standard.

When folks realized there wasn't time to meet the 2018 deadline, all of the
sudden,  the agile plan seemed like a great idea. Let's iterate! It doesn't
have to be complete because we have another one coming in 2 years.

Some annoying folks tried to point out that this 'every two years a new
standard comes out' probably would surprise governments and present
problems for them - and quality issues for us and them.

That's my take....:-)

The facts may differ. That is how it appears from the outside.

If you care to know when I became concerned and then alarmed, read on:

I became worried the minute I saw the 'two years' in the draft Charter,
even after bringing it up on calls and email many times, but figured a
compromise would be reached.

Starting close to TPAC were four specific mentions, by influential people,
of putting off most or all of the COGA SC to 2.2 and/or Silver, since
Mobile and LV seemed to be readier - that I heard myself.

Then, as the 2 year folks dug in,  and no compromise seemed to be
forthcoming. I began to realize that apparently I was messing with
someones' or some groups' specific plan. And what I feared for the COGA
people would most likely also come to pass.

Which meant we weren't going to keep our word to COGA, governments and
others might panic, we wouldn't have enough time for quality build, test
and comment cycles, and *complete* was no longer necessary.

The concerns of some seasoned folks was ignored, or maybe deemed
'unimportant', 'out-of-touch' or 'fear mongering'.

Then I got mad. Did it show?...:-)

For what it is worth I have never, in 16 years, ever disrupted the WCAG
process. But then, I had no reason to. Consensus was king.

Comments like mine, Gregg's, Jason's, Allen's, Lisa's and David's had never
been dismissed out of hand by chairs before.




Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 13, 2016 5:23 PM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> I think this is a key one:
>
>
>
> *KHS: I am objecting to providing an incomplete, non-stable, set of SC
> from any of the TFs in 2.1*
>
>
>
> As one of those less experienced in this process, I am assuming we *don’t*
> have time/resource to work through all of the possible SCs for 2018.
>
>
>
> I’m struggling to square that position, as we have to either:
>
> ·         Do a sub-set of the total SCs for 2.1, or
>
> ·         Extend the timeline, or
>
> ·         Increase the resource.
>
>
>
> Or perhaps focus on one task force at a time? (I don’t think anyone is
> suggesting that, I’m grasping at straws.)
>
>
>
> We’ve had consensus on the 2.1 approach (rather than extensions), people
> are committed to 2.1 in 2018, and we all understand the constraints of
> people’s time. I don’t understand how we can get to this point and then
> baulk?
>
>
>
> What I * am* assuming is that we can go through a process where the SCs
> are evaluated, worked on, and a “stable”, coherent set be made into 2.1.  I
> don’t know how big a sub-set that will be, but there are plenty of fairly
> low-hanging fruit that would make it worthwhile.
>
>
>
> If that assumption isn’t correct, we might as well admit that 2.1 will be
> on the same timescale as Silver, scrap it, and focus on Silver. (Which
> would probably torpedo our charter, and I would very much disagree with
> taking that route.)
>
>
>
> Sorry for the frustration evident in this email, I’m just trying to work
> out how we got to this stage and what it means.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>