RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

Gosh. That could be problematic if they do not put forward the ones that are most crucial. -, that would be crazy. 

Josh and Andrew are you proposing that you decide what SC are included or can each task force reach a consensus on what SC they feel are the most important for inclusion in a first working draft. 


What is the advantage of your deciding that?

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:05:34 +0200 Michael Gower<michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> wrote ---- 

That's not what's being asked and voted on. I assume TFs and SC managers will advocate and suggest, but my understanding is the chairs are to come up with the list we will vet.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:        "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
To:        Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>
Cc:        "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "WCAG Editors" <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
Date:        2017-02-16 11:43 AM
Subject:        RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.



I agree with Kathy, I think the  each task fource should each identify the 8 success criteria they would like to include 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter




---- On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:01:37 +0200 Kathy Wahlbin<kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>wrote ---- 
I agree and support the direction to incorporate 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. 
On the MATF call, people suggested adding a link to the other SCs that did not make the first draft so people can see what is on Github and comment?
 
Kathy
CEO & Founder
Interactive Accessibility
 
T (978) 443-0798  F(978) 560-1251 C (978) 760-0682
E kathyw@ia11y.com 
www.InteractiveAccessibility.com
 
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:34 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
Importance: High
 
AGWG’ers,
We have heard an increased number of requests that we ensure the WCAG 2.1 FPWD willbe 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