Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

PS there is also the AAA proposal from the DPub group.

https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/82

I could do a pull Request on it if the chairs would like.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> +1, and thanks for the clarifications.
> ________________________________________
> From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
> Sent: 16 February 2017 22:20
> To: lisa.seeman; Michael Gower
> Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; Kathy Wahlbin; WCAG Editors; WCAG
> Subject: 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><mailto: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:l
> isa.seeman@zoho.com>>
> To:        Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com<mailto:kathy@
> interactiveaccessibility.com>>
> Cc:        "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:aki
> rkpat@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__SX18Mp9Fb6tIJfzgjkhM1qTux9Wkse
> gD3zR-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 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<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>