- From: Chakravarthula, Srinivasu <srchakravarthula@informatica.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:53:17 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
+1. Regards, Srinivasu Chakravarthula | Informatica | @CSrinivasu Sent from my iPhone > On 16-Feb-2017, at 22:21, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > > +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 16:53:52 UTC