- From: Thaddeus . <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:26:49 -0800
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: W3c-Wai-Gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOh2y+_BZ0+j8FS1O39gC3qt04nBQmnEduLgNqRAy=-3WjLK4g@mail.gmail.com>
+1 Thaddeus On Feb 16, 2017 8:35 AM, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com> 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 > http://twitter.com/awkawk >
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 17:27:23 UTC