Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD

Thanks Alistair - we are hope to work out a smoother process on the 
editors call tomorrow that we can implement post CSUN.

Josh

> Alastair Campbell <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>
> 21 February 2017 at 23:57
> +1 to publish.
>
> I'd just note that, by the time it gets to announcement, it would 
> really help if the links through to Issues / PRs could go to somewhere 
> more useful.
>
> At the moment they (mostly?) go to closed issues/PRs. For the SCs I 
> manage, can I open a new issue to take public comments?
>
> -Alastair
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <
> Sent: 21 February 2017 18:26
> To: WCAG
> Subject: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday February 23th at 1:30pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group discussed the latest editor’s draft of WCAG 2.1 
> (https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html) and 
> basedon a survey 
> (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results) and a 
> Working Group call (http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html) 
> where the majority of comments were resolved and no blocking issues 
> remained.
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> 21 February 2017 at 18:26
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday February 23th at 1:30pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group discussed the latest editor’s draft of WCAG 2.1 
> (https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html) and 
> basedon a survey 
> (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results) and a 
> Working Group call (http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html) 
> where the majority of comments were
> resolved and no blocking issues remained.
>
> On the call people believed that we had reached a consensus position 
> that the Working Group should publish the Editor's Draft as the First 
> Publish Working Draft (FPWD). This will allow the group to meet its 
> charter deadline. The Working Group included several SC that do not 
> have Working Group consensus, but the Working Group did have consensus 
> that publishing was valuable in order to get additional feedback from 
> the public, and notes were included in the draft to point out aspects 
> that do not have consensus at this time.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie