RE: Objection Re: CFC - Response to Issue 520

+1 to Andrew’s response, and note that the objection appears to be to the process (which I agree with Andrew offered adequate opportunity to all participants in the working group to respond), and not to the substance of the decision made in the CfC.

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick []
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:33 PM
To: lisa.seeman <>; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <>
Subject: Re: Objection Re: CFC - Response to Issue 520

We reviewed a different response a number of meetings ago and asked for people to offer improvements and received none.  As we approached the comment deadline, we tried new language and discussed it on a call and although it was close the group had some changes to suggest. Changes were made, it was sent to the list to get a sense of whether people were happy with it, and then I sent out the CFC. >48 hours later I concluded the CFC.

For reference, all CFC’s start with “CFC –“ and the starting and ending messages are from a chair and have the “high priority” flag on the email.

Regarding a note about passing the CFC with no review or input from COGA, I respectfully disagree. The COGA TF is part of the AGWG and has every opportunity to review and weigh in on CFC’s.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility

From: "<>" <<>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 03:14
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <<>>, WCAG <<>>
Subject: Objection Re: CFC - Response to Issue 520

I appolgise for being outside the deadline but I object to his CFC.

Can we have at least a minimum text label added to CFCs so that people can track what CFCs they have reviewed and identify which h are relavent. This is especially important for CFC s related to coga and CFCs are being passed in huge numbers , some about COGA,  without being sure if anyone from coga has been able to review them, and no agreement from COGA recorded.

Please add to the objection the following note: This CFC was passed with no input or review from COGA

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<>, Twitter<>

---- On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:15:55 +0200<> wrote ----


As we have received only positive feedback leading up to this CfC and no responses indicating that group members could not live this this decision, this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group.

This decision will be recorded at


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <<>>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 16:57
To: WCAG <<>>
Subject: CFC - Response to Issue 520
Resent-From: WCAG <<>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 16:55

Call For Consensus — ends Thursday January 9th at 5pm Boston time.

The Working Group has discussed a response to issue 520 (<>).

The specific response is at<>, and it was surveyed at<>.

The response was discussed on the call (minutes:<>) and with follow-up discussion on the list (<>).

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.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 20:17:21 UTC