RE: Fwd: WCAG 3 Explainer to FPWD?

+1
I had also not been paying very much attention to it, but I understood it as publishing the explainer note, and that is how it has been communicated in the calls.

-Alastair

From: Rachael Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>
Sent: 19 November 2021 21:35
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Cc: Silver Editors <public-silver-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: WCAG 3 Explainer to FPWD?

Thank you Michael.

Can everyone please +1 to moving forward with publication so we make sure we have leaders agreement?

We can all only go as fast as we can go.

Kind regards,

Rachael
On Nov 19, 2021, 4:28 PM -0500, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org<mailto:cooper@w3.org>>, wrote:


I know, the wording is tricky, and I'm sorry I didn't catch it earlier. FPWD is a formal stage and I should have paid more attention leading up to that. I don't have a sense of what the WG was understanding in the meeting, but I see that in the minutes it was called a "first draft" many times, so I'm hoping that was the understanding. If the interpretation sounds reasonable to those on this list (no objections) I'll go with it and use it for the transition request. Worst case is I get pushback from PLH which adds a week to the publication schedule.

Since I am taking next week off, I plan to publish the documents on November 30 if possible, slip date December 2. Sorry I took longer than expected to make this happen.

Michael
On 19/11/2021 4:03 p.m., Rachael Montgomery wrote:
Michael,

I keep rewriting this because it can be read as snarky but isnt meant as such. Please read it with compassion for the tone.

I am only rarely confident of what the working group understood, understands, or will be understanding at any given point.

I didn't realize this was a FPWD, so didn't call that out in this or the following CFC request that confirmed the publication. Should I send an email and ask if anyone was unclear that agreement to publish was putting out a FPWD? The other option would be to send out another CFC but that is possibly confusing.

If everyone's agreement was not to publish this as a FPWD, what other possible alternative were they agreeing to?

Other options?

Kind regards,

Rachael
On Nov 19, 2021, 3:48 PM -0500, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org><mailto:cooper@w3.org>, wrote:


Hmm. I was not interpreting that from the wording. If you are confident the WG understood this to be a CfC for FPWD, we can go ahead. Michael
On 19/11/2021 3:24 p.m., Rachael Montgomery wrote:
Fyi to add all editors
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael
Date: Nov 19, 2021, 3:23 PM -0500
To: Michael Cooper
Cc: Jeanne Spellman , Rachael Bradley Montgomery
Subject: WCAG 3 Explainer to FPWD?


Michael - Please see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2021JulSep/0171.html<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2021JulSep%2F0171.html&data=04%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C4d15e75d7e7f4821e17008d9aba482ee%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C637729545490392827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=F6rui0CEoCAyix9KnWd3mj532AAC25RAVQMrHHKtLHk%3D&reserved=0>

Does that meet the need?

---
Rachael Bradley Montgomery, PhD
Digital Accessibility Specialist
Library of Congress
Email: rmontgomery@loc.gov<mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>