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

Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:34:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxHZaOnVKKorbkm0bRSQVD3G_AULTH3cYuEen9pg2_rR2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
But it *did* say two and biennial before people objected, didnt it? Let's
be considerate please.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 14, 2016 9:58 PM, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:

> Wayne,
> The charter has no commitment to a two year plan, in fact the word “two”
> doesn’t appear in the charter at all.
>
> There is a stated intent for a three year schedule: "The Working Group
> intends to produce updated guidance for accessibility on a regular interval
> of approximately three years, starting with WCAG 2.1.”
>
> Does three years work better for you?
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/14/16, 14:23, "Wayne Dick" <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I do not agree with the two year re lease plan. A two year review plan
> >is good, but two year seems arbitrary. SC's are interrelated it
> >doesn't make sense. it seems excessively burdensome.
> >
> >I know what you are trying to do, but it is not there. There need to
> >be a way to balance shorter time to release and completing tasks.
> >
> >Wayne
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >> This CFC received 18 affirmative votes and one outstanding objection.
> The
> >> chairs feel that the objection has been considered and was partly
> addressed
> >> by a compromise in draft charter language. Therefore, it is agreed as a
> >> decision (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy) of the WCAG
> Working
> >> Group to advance the draft charter for further review by W3M and the
> W3C AC,
> >> but we will record the objection along with the decision.
> >>
> >> The decision is recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions.
> The
> >> one outstanding objection
> >> (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0167.html)
> is
> >> recorded via reference to this email.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> AWK
> >>
> >> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> >> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> >> Adobe
> >>
> >> akirkpat@adobe.com
> >> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> >>
> >> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> >> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 13:10
> >> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> >> Subject: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review
> >> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> >> Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 13:10
> >>
> >> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday October 13 at 1:00pm Boston time.
> >>
> >> This is a CfC seeking WG approval to release the current draft charter
> for
> >> AC review.  The item was surveyed, discussed on the WG call, and
> approved
> >> (http://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html). There was much
> >> discussion leading up to the call, and on the call, and the group felt
> that
> >> a consensus opinion was reached on key items.
> >>
> >> Draft charter: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter
> >>
> >> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have
> not
> >> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being
> >> able to live with” this position, please let the group know before the
> CfC
> >> deadline.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> AWK
> >>
> >> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> >> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> >> Adobe
> >>
> >> akirkpat@adobe.com
> >> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 19:34:40 UTC

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