Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

+1 to the compromise solution to incorporate selected SC from each TF into
a FPWD, along with any consensed ad-hoc SC proposed as it looks like there
are a couple of those that can also be incorporated.  Any non-consensus
SC's should be clearly marked.

Best regards,

Mary Jo
                    Mary Jo                                                                    
                    IBM Research,                                                              
                    Austin, TX                                                                 
                    512-286-9698 |                                                             
                    Search for                                                                 

"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader."
~John Quincy Adams

From:   Andrew Kirkpatrick <>
To:     WCAG <>
Cc:     WCAG Editors <>
Date:   02/16/2017 11:35 AM
Subject:        Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

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

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

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


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2017 22:36:25 UTC