Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to be on record as saying:

+1 on comprimise
support clearly marking those with consensus at publishing, and clearly
marking those without consensus with links to additional information.

Glenda

P.S.  Thanks to every single one of you for your efforts in moving
accessibility forward.

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773


*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

> We haven’t re-met, we have had meeting on this…
>
>
>
> ​​​​​** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <(703)%20371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <(703)%20371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>
>
> NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an
> expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I
> am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and -
> that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque
> Systems.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 10:45 AM
> *To:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks David, but if the group meant to discuss this hasn’t even met yet
> I’m thinking that this might be a “second public working draft” item…
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Date: *Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:43
> *To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
>
>
>
> I've added a Pull Request for the DPUB metadata AAA SC. I think it should
> be in the FPWD if possible also.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/142
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> 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 11:34 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> AGWG’ers,
>
> 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
> 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
>
>
>