Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

On 2/16/2017 3:13 PM, lisa.seeman wrote:
> 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.

To jump in - the chairs are *not* proposing they decide what SC might 
get included as "proposed" in the FPWD. They have asked TF facilitators 
to nominate a set. The chairs will have to select from that set ones 
that are most likely to help public review of the draft as a whole, and 
hope to select about 8 from each TF - *from among the ones submitted as 
most important for that TF*.

This is a fast turnaround because we think it's still important to make 
the planned publication date, so I don't think there's time for the TFs 
to do a consensus process, I hope the facilitators can speak for the TF 
on this. If the WG doesn't approve this fast direction, then we won't 
make the publication date, which has a set of impacts on us. If the WG 
does approve the direction, a review copy of the draft with those SC in 
will be made available quickly, and the group can still decide to 
approve or reject that as a whole, so hopefully the FPWD will be 
something everyone can live with. I know this is all fast, but I hope we 
can make it work, as it will leave us in the best position for the rest 
of the year.

About the various comments saying yes but let's make sure to make the 
not-yet-approved SC visible and link to the issue / pull request - that 
is definitely part of the proposal.

Michael

>
> What is the advantage of your deciding that?
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- 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 <mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
>     voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
>     From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com
>     <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
>     To: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com
>     <mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>>
>     Cc: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com
>     <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>     <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, "WCAG Editors"
>     <team-wcag-editors@w3.org <mailto: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_ <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, _Twitter_
>     <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
>     ---- On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:01:37 +0200 *Kathy
>     Wahlbin<kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:kathyw@ia11y.com>_
>
>     _www.InteractiveAccessibility.com_
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.interactiveaccessibility.com_&d=CwMGaQ&c=jxhwBfk-KSV6FFIot0PGng&r=UK__SX18Mp9Fb6tIJfzgjkhM1qTux9WksegD3zR-Bss&m=Kyx2xjSikKdohzK4YYjpf6lkpNeSYzbcW2-3BWkmRfM&s=QvEa6SOOfiPYi3edgtQBne9UjZFUHulJz3xqkGwAu7o&e=>
>
>     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
>     <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>_] *
>     Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:34 AM*
>     To:* WCAG <_w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>_>*
>     Cc:* WCAG Editors <_team-wcag-editors@w3.org
>     <mailto: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
>     ofwhether 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 <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>_
>
>     _http://twitter.com/awkawk_
>
>
>
>
>
>
>