Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

I think 8 from each is a great idea for the FPWD.

I'd like to suggest that in the FPWD we have a link to the corresponding
Pull request to see the understanding and the rational, benefits,
techniques etc...  (Some PR's would have to fill this information in). This
would act like the current links in WCAG2 to the understaning.

Alternatively, a link could point to the Issue number which already has
that.

But I don't think we need to decide on whether the link goes to the PR or
the Issue # and stick with that for all.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:49 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> +1
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Thaddeus . <inclusivethinking@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +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
>>>
>>
>