RE: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

To those influential people who pushed the ‘2 year agile-like normative timeline’ agenda,

 

If the draft Charter is approved by the AC, to help this WG meet the IMHO unrealistic goal that was originally identified, but then not *really* compromised upon (transparently within the WG itself, as it should have been) up to a IMHO more-hopeful-still-unrealistic 3 year timeline -- Let me suggest a few things:

 

 

Please do NOT:

 

*         Require a dedicated number of hours from volunteers WG members and participants to maintain good-standing above the current WG norm
(very few, if any, are paid to do WG work)



*         Move your time, attention and focus off-of 2.1 and on-to a Silver release
(leaving the rest of us to try to implement the unrealistic goals you have pushed for)



*         Use that influence to merely criticize SC work and content put forward by others
(be leaders, be useful, provide WCAG 2.1 content or alternate content for others to critique) 

 

​​​​​

Please DO:

 

*         Use your powerful influence to recruit more knowledgable people to join the WG
(and not just those that agree with you)



*         The very hard work of writing actual new SC, and then also, the techniques and understanding doc content to support them. It is in *this effort* -- the building of good testable SC – that your help and contributions is needed most.
(I have heard some of you critisize and complain often about: “since WCAG is unclear on this…”, “WCAG missed this”, “WCAG was short-sigted on this”, “WCAG says nothing about this….”) -- but look, here is *your* opportunity to make WCAG 2.1 un-critisizable and correct, perfect even – please, have at it!)



*         Dedicate yourself to building a solid, meaningful, complete, and adoptable standard
(not looking at 2.1 as if it were an adjunct, until we can get to something else)



*         Educate yourselves about the standards adoption processes used by governments around the world

 

 

What I have read in the minutes of yesterday’s WG meeting, sounds a bit more hopeful (in my mind). There is a long way to go before the Charter is complete and approved, hopefully we will get useful input from W3M and the AC.

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:54 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

 

But it *did* say two and biennial before people objected, didnt it? Let's be considerate please.

 

At the time Wayne emailed, it did not say two, that had been changed 3 days earlier, so I assumed that he was looking at the document in its current form.

AWK

 

 

On Oct 14, 2016 9:58 PM, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto: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 <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> 
http://twitter.com/awkawk







On 10/14/16, 14:23, "Wayne Dick" <wayneedick@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> 
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>
>> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> >
>> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 13:10
>> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >
>> Subject: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review
>> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> 
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk