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

+1 to this iterative approach.


Léonie
-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

On 07/02/2017 21:36, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> 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!
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:33
> To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>"
> <lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>, WCAG
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Subject: RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must
> get consensus
> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 11:34
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
> *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 21:39:24 UTC