W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

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

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 21:57:05 +0000
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8DF63496-92D7-4068-9DF1-3EDFF7DEDCF6@adobe.com>
Sorry Jason, the question was just for you to state whether you could live with the consensus.

Right now, “yes” votes are:
Rachael Bradley Montomery
Alan Smith
Alastair Campbell
Wilco Fiers
Srinivasu Chakravathula
Sarah Horton
Steve Faulkner
David MacDonald
Makoto Ueki
Leonie Watson
March Johlic
Shawn Lauriat (after deadline)
Glenda Sims (after deadline)

No votes are:
Katie Haritos-Shea

Not clear votes are
Jason White
Vivienne Conway

So, can you live with it as it is?

Can you live with the compromise?
[Jason] If everyone else can live with the compromise, I can too, but this doesn’t appear to be the case according to the latest discussion on the list. I think the right way forward is to remove the material giving rise to controversy from the draft Charter, to proceed with the charter process, and to develop plans beyond WCAG 2.1 in the Project Plan, where they can be updated as the group’s thinking evolves.
I think the language about the possibility of proceeding directly to version 3.0 or, instead, possibly introducing further 2.x releases should remain in the Charter as a clear indication of the alternatives before the Working Group at the end of the 2.1 process.

In other words, I don’t wish to block a consensus here, but nor do I think I’m alone in having residual issues with the compromise, and I think the approach that I’ve recommended is the one that would attract the least dissent, given recent discussions.

Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 21:57:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC