W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: Timeline to get WCAG 2.1 to Rec

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 16:21:46 -0500
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <32bf2eeb-6607-be6c-ce7f-42da43c9d315@tink.uk>
Thanks Michael. I knew it had changed in Process 2018, just forgot how. 
I've submitted a PR against the Process to fix it in any case.

On 06/03/2018 16:45, Michael Cooper wrote:
> On 06/03/2018 2:20 PM, Léonie Watson wrote:
>> On 06/03/2018 12:28, Michael Cooper wrote:
>>> Here is the detailed timeline we have set up to manage our progress 
>>> to Recommendation:
>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_timeline/Details
>> The timeline has the AC review starting in PR, but unless I'm missing 
>> something, the 2018 Process says this should be triggered at CR 
>> [1]https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#maturity-levels.
> This might be old text that was not updated. Although I can't find an 
> announcement that went out, a clarification was put on the Process wiki 
> page back in September 2017:
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Process2018#.2334_Process2014_introduced_an_AC_ballot_for_CR_transitions_and_now_we_have_a_ballot_open_for_a_year 
> This noted that starting AC review at CR had introduced problems and 
> practice was returning to starting AC review at PR. This is reflected on 
> Process 2018, where the section on CR does not say an AC review should 
> open:
> https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#candidate-rec
> while the section on PR does say an AC review should open:
> https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#rec-pr
> It seems the editors of the process document didn't clean up the 
> reference you found when making this change. But the intention in the 
> timeline to start AC review at PR does reflect the current Process 
> requirements.
> Michael
>> From 6.1.2:
>> "A Candidate Recommendation is a document that satisfies the technical 
>> requirements of the Working Group that produced it and their 
>> dependencies, or makes substantive corrections to a Recommendation 
>> that is not maintained by a Working Group, and has already received 
>> wide review. W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to
>> - signal to the wider community that it is time to do a final review
>> - gather implementation experience
>> - begin formal review by the Advisory Committee, who may recommend 
>> that the document be published as a W3C Recommendation, returned to 
>> the Working Group for further work, or abandoned.
>> - Provide an exclusion opportunity per the W3C Patent Policy.
>> Note: A Candidate Recommendation under this process corresponds to the 
>> "Last Call Working Draft" discussed in the Patent Policy."
>> It goes on:
>> "A Proposed Recommendation is a document that has been accepted by the 
>> W3C Director as of sufficient quality to become a W3C Recommendation. 
>> This phase establishes a deadline for the Advisory Committee review 
>> that begins with Candidate Recommendation. Substantive changes must 
>> not be made to a Proposed Recommendation except by publishing a new 
>> Working Draft or Candidate Recommendation."
>> Léonie
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#maturity-levels
>>> Michael

@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2018 21:22:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:22 UTC