Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

+1
                                                                                        
                    Erich Manser                                                        
                    IBM                                                                 
                    Accessibility,                                                      
                    IBM Research                                                        
                    Littleton,                                                          
                    MA / tel:                                                           
                    978-696-1810                                                        
                    Search for                                                          
                    accessibility                                                       
                    answers                                                             
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
                                                                                        



You don't need eyesight to have vision.



From: Moe Kraft/Westford/IBM@Lotus
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>, WCAG
            <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: 02/16/2017 03:24 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.



+1

I agree  with 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.



From:        Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
To:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc:        WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
Date:        02/16/2017 11:35 AM
Subject:        Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.



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