Re[4]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

Thanks Katie for the prompt reply - appreciated. Some comments inline - 
trimmed a little.

>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
>KHS: They are: influential people who actively came up with this idea 
>and actively *pushed* for it – without allowing for compromise (the ‘2 
>year agile-like normative timeline’ agenda), and they know who they 
>are. This suggestion and email was *not*directed towards those who 
>merely agreed because it sounded like a good idea to them. Sorry if I 
>wasn’t clear in the email about that – I thought *pushed* had covered 
>it.
>

Ok - I appreciate that some voices are louder than others, but to be 
fair we do our best to look between the lines and don't take anything 
merely at face value.

>>
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
>KHS: I actually do not agree with that statement, Josh. And that is not 
>a reflection on you or Andrew. There are behind-the-scenes of this WG 
>meetings that happen and define the details, direction and make 
>decisions about this group and its work.  That reality was in full 
>force surrounding this issue and charter.
>

There are always 'machinations'. I'm not privy to many things, and just 
rely on my best judgement (for better or worse) and the advice of my 
peers (you and the other members).

<chair hat off>
The record will show I'm not a fan of this time cycle either but I can't 
impose my will on the group.
</chair hat off>


>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
>KHS: Again. they are: influential people who actively came up with this 
>idea and actively *pushed* for it – without allowing for compromise 
>(the ‘2 year agile-like normative timeline’ agenda), and they know who 
>they are. This suggestion and email was *not*directed towards those who 
>merely agreed because it sounded like a good idea to them.
>

Ok.


>
>>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>KHS: “Respectful discourse is required here”, I couldn’t agree more 
>Josh.
>
Ok - good. Lets take that as a given.

>My comments and objections came about because this was not the case. On 
>the subject of this Charter, some respected individuals went either 
>unheard, or were contacted behind the scenes.
>
>
>
>Over the past year or so, some disruptive voices have in fact spent 
>quite a bit of time 'merely criticizing' content brought forward to the 
>WG by others, without offering alterative content.
>
Well - the group does look at all suggestions for either techniques/SC 
'critically' - and will continue to do so. I do agree that work should 
not just be shot down in flames - without a considered alternative.

>I believe that criticism via dis-respectful discourse, has silenced the 
>voices of those who fear back-lash, but who have other opinions and 
>ideas that could have been brought forward – and been very useful to 
>our work. I fear that this has weakened input from newbies to this 
>group – which in essence has damaged the integrity of this group.
>
I am sorry to hear this - and hope this not the case. We do try to give 
as much room for question and comment and make our process and working 
group interaction as 'human' as possible.
I will make more of an effort to ensure that new comers in particular 
are not intimidated/fearful of venturing opinions etc, especially when 
they go against the grain. We do need people to go against the grain 
also. That friction brings progress.

>
>
>
>
>And for allowing that to happen, I do hold the chairs accountable. I do 
>understand how complicated it is for you, but I wish the chairs had 
>pushed back as hard (or even half as hard) on those folks who were 
>disrespectful and dismissive to WG members, as you have been pushing 
>back on me for my opinions – and in public, as you have done with me.
>
The chairs are responsible, for the outcomes of all our work yes. 
However, I will push back on anyone when I feel it is appropriate and am 
not shy to do so. I would not brook any disrespect between members also. 
I don't intend to single you out btw - apologies if it feels like that. 
Note, our discussions are open/onlist, as we believe it helps the group 
know what is going on - and lessen talk of  'behind the scenes chatter' 
etc. You just happen to be rather vocal here.

>
>
>
>
>My concern is this, that those who pushed/created this agile timeline 
>idea….
>
>– will not do the *actual work* of 2.1 – but will fob it off on others, 
>and…
>
>-- will focus on Silver/3.0 – and then complain that we have done the 
>2.1 job poorly……
>
Ok - I agree with this also FWIW.

>
>
>
>
>I want to be very clear, that email was targeted at a very small set of 
>influential people on the WG……
>
>
>
>Katie…….wishing my crystal ball was fogged, instead of filled with this 
>very plausible vision of our future….
>

I don't feel we are on the verge of a11yageddon - I'm hopeful that the 
next round (of AC review etc) will get us over the line and we can get 
down to substantive work.

Thanks

Josh

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>>