- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:47:56 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
+1 for compromise position P On 16/02/2017 16:34, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > AGWG’ers, > We have heard an increased number of requests that we ensure the WCAG > 2.1 FPWD will be released before CSUN in order to keep in line with the > Charter, which specified a February date. Concerns cited include that we > will open the group to criticism if we miss the deadline (the > counter-concern is that the group would be open to criticism if the SC > are perceived to be poorly-vetted) and that we really need additional > outside feedback on many items and we won’t get that until we have a > public review draft. > > Our feeling is that there are three factors under consideration, and > that we can only satisfy two of these: > > 1. Deliver the FPWD on time > 2. Deliver the FPWD with SC that are well-vetted by the WG > 3. Deliver the FPWD with a large number of the proposed SC > > The Chairs and Michael feel like we need to consider a compromise position. > > We are asking the group to provide quick feedback on the question > of whether people would approve the incorporation of a selection of SC > from each TF into a FPWD draft provided that we mark the SC with a note > that indicates that the SC is in a proposal stage and has not reached WG > consensus, but that we would welcome feedback on the SC to help the > group refine them further. > > If this were to happen, the chairs would prepare a review draft with ~8 > new SC from each TF, and then we would have a survey sent out tomorrow > that would provide a way for WG members to provide feedback on each SC, > and assuming that there aren’t major objections (due to a SC not meeting > the SC requirements in a profound and unresolvable way) then we would > include each SC in the draft. > > This is a change, and it will require compromise for everyone. This > requires that the group members are willing to put out a draft that > explicitly states that it includes non-consensus items. > > What do people think? If we are going to do this we will need to move > quickly. > > Thanks, > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > http://twitter.com/awkawk -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:48:22 UTC