Re: important decisions need to have an explicit and new subject line. - was -- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.

Yep, Lisa. I wouldn't know either if Jim Allan hadn't called me last Friday.

Wayne

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:26 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> As you know I am a slow reader, so I need specific information in the
> subject line. I can not follow every email from every subject lined email.
> I had answered the request for  immediate response but I did not read
> everyone else's response.
>
> SO... I Just found out about this essential decision by accident on a team
> call
>
> I think important decisions need to have an explicit and new  subject
> line.
> (Also, as I have told the chairs, my email is flooded right now as I made
> all the coga github issues requests - SO it is more important then ever)
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:25:04 +0200 *Andrew
> Kirkpatrick<akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpat@adobe.com>>* wrote ----
>
> OK folks, buckle up, the group has spoken and we are going to get the
> draft out later today and will have a survey to look at the SC that we have
> asked the TF facilitators to suggest.
>
> More to come soon, thanks for the rapid feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:34
> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Cc: WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
> Subject: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
> Resent-From: WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:34
>
> 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
>
>
>
>