Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

Sorry typo:

> Of those, only 4 have existing Pull Requests.

Should be:
Of those 5 have existing Pull Requests.

On 2/16/17, Laura Carlson <> wrote:
> 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,
> Laura
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> 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,
>> AWK
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>> Adobe
> --
> Laura L. Carlson

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:42:49 UTC