Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

What if the items that have achieved consensus were released for feedback, with the understanding that there was another set that would follow later?
That way we'd get some info out before CSUN, get feedback on consensus items, and could continue discussion on remaining items. 

If this isn't appealing, then let's mark items that have not reached consensus and provide a Github link as Kathy suggested.


    On Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:51 PM, David MacDonald <> wrote:

David MacDonald CanAdapt Solutions Inc.Tel:  613.235.4902LinkedIn    Adapting the web to all users            Including those with disabilities
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Thaddeus . <> wrote:

+1 Thaddeus On Feb 16, 2017 8:35 AM, "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:   
   - Deliver the FPWD on time
   - Deliver the FPWD with SC that are well-vetted by the WG
   - 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.
Andrew KirkpatrickGroup Product Manager, Standards and AccessibilityAdobe 


Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 18:07:35 UTC