Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

Hi Andrew and all,

+1 for comprise.

8 SCs should be plenty for the LVTF as we only have 7 proposals under
consideration [1]. Of those, only 4 have existing Pull Requests.

Something to be aware of is that we do have one Ad Hoc SC proposal [2]
/ Pull Request [3] that isn't associated with any Task Force. I am
managing it and it is on the February 7 survey.

I agree with David's suggestion that the FPWD have a link to the
corresponding Pull Request to see the understanding and the rational,
benefits, techniques etc...  If managers complete that information in
the first comment on the PR they are able to keep it updated
themselves. They don't have to bother the person who filed the
original issue do it for them.

Kindest Regards,


On 2/16/17, 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,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:17:21 UTC