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

>To those influential people who pushed the ‘2 year agile-like normative 
>timeline’ agenda,
>
Katie - with all due respect, I just don't understand what that means. 
We are all 'influencers' here - including you.
So if the remaining parts of this message are directed at any particular 
individuals/members I fail to have a clear understanding of who they 
are.
As far as I'm concerned everyone who is actively involved in this 
discussion is a valued source of influence.

>
>
>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 --
>
Your opinion is noted (and your previous input/comments have also been 
appreciated). Note, everything relating to this charter has been discuss 
ad naseam with the group in full transparency. So I kindly ask you to 
not imply that it was not. That is partly why this process takes so much 
time.


>Let me suggest a few things:
>
Again - I'm not sure who these suggestions are for, so I won't comment 
on them directly. If you have comments for the chairs or any TF/sub 
group, please qualify them by stating who they are directed at.
I'm not trying to be funny here, btw.


>Please do NOT:
>
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>·         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)
>
I will comment on these two points. I urge you to please not to make 
these kinds of comments; implying that any members will use their 
influence to 'merely criticize' or only interact with those who have the 
same perspective. This language does not help/clarify any of the points 
that you are making and in effect, dilutes them. Respectful discourse is 
required here, even more so now, as this is a time where there is a 
divergence in opinions/wants.

>
>
>[...]
>
>
>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.
>
Yes. As you say, there is another review cycle and (to re-state for 
transparency) we will then iterate the charter based on that feedback. 
So nothing is fait accompli and we still have a way to go.
Some people who are AC reps on this group, will again have their chance 
to provide further constructive feedback in that forum.

Thanks

Josh

>
>
>* katie *
>
>
>
>Katie Haritos-Shea
>Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
>
>
>Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile 
>| Office: 703-371-5545 | @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> 
>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
>>