Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus

Thanks for raising the discussion on the list Lisa. What Jason describes is the basic approach that the chairs have suggested:

If a proposed SC is determined by the WG to sufficiently meet the requirements for SC’s that the group has established, then we will accept it into the Editor’s draft. That doesn’t mean that the SC won’t be modified in response to future comments, or possibly removed entirely. What it does mean is that the Working Group believes that it is sufficiently testable, impactful for users, achievable, etc that the group is willing to promote it as a suggested SC when we reach FPWD.

On the other hand, if a proposed SC does not reach consensus in the group then we will not accept it into the Editor’s draft. This doesn’t mean that it won’t be added into the next public working draft, as the Working Group may come to consensus on the SC at a later date.

As Jason indicated, we are concerned that we deliver public review drafts that represent the consensus of the group, and if we don’t do that we feel that there is an increased chance of negative impressions and diluting the comments received in that items that are not agreed to by the WG are more likely to receive more comments.

As this is will affect the Working Group internal process, we do want to understand what the WG members feel we should do. Please let us know!


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

From: "White, Jason J" <<>>
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:33
To: "<>" <<>>, WCAG <<>>
Subject: RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
Resent-From: WCAG <<>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:34

From: lisa.seeman []
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:17 PM

Andrew said on the call today that  SC that do not meet all the acceptance criteria left out of this draft . This is an issue that must get consensus. It should not be a decision the chairs and staff contact make by themselves.
[Jason] I’m comfortable with omitting from this first draft anything that has not reached the stage of development at which circulating it for external review is appropriate. I expect proposals to be added to and deleted from drafts as the WCAG 2.1 effort proceeds, just as occurred with WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 when they were under development.
I think it would be highly undesirable to expect everyone to bring their proposals to the point at which external review is desirable in time for releasing a first public working draft. Let’s simply avoid that kind of pressure. I know participants in this group are working hard as it is.
I am also concerned that giving public reviewers a large number of proposals of varying quality to respond to could (1) create negative impressions of the work over-all, and (2) overwhelm reviewers with issues without obtaining focused comments on proposals that the working group considers ready for wider circulation and comment.
Consider this a statement in favor of a more focused first public working draft to which additional proposals can be added as the work progresses.


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 21:36:47 UTC