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 GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:37:04 -0400
To: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <028e01d229ec$5a5164b0$0ef42e10$@gmail.com>
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.




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

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?


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> 

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.
>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
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 09:37:45 UTC

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