Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

The thing that helps me accept the three-year discussion in the current
charter is that it does not refer to normative or non-normative guidance.
We currently update "accessibility guidance" every six months and we are
not going against the intent of the charter if we decide to provide non
normative accessibility guidance rather than a brand-new WCAG version after
3 years.

At least this is how I understand it when I read the document currently.

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 Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>