Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule

if you mean an internal “editors draft”  that is fine.    But you do not want to publish public drafts like that or no one will take any of them seriously and comment.   Always a new one coming.


ALSO —   I think you need to take all of your  “not qualified yet” ones  out after that last release — and only have valid drafts going out going forward.      (You can put all the other items in an appendix or another doc )      Otherwise you will get huge pushback when you drop them at the very end  — and people didnt understand that   ‘don’t qualify’ means they can’t go in. 

Best to have them see that on next draft and really pitch in to help figure out how to get them in.   And then you end on a note of more getting in rather than all falling out.   Hard to do but bite the bullet now or you will have only pain later.

best

gregg

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday March 30th at 1:30pm Boston time.
> 
> On the call today we discussed a suggested a monthly publishing schedule for our working draft.
> You can review the schedule here. [1]
> 
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline> 
> -- 
> Joshue O Connor
> Director | InterAccess.ie