W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Agenda April 22th

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:09:19 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183AE8F@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

So, Joe, how many conformance levels do *you* think there should be? How
do *you* think they should bedefined?  


Personally, I prefer three levels. If that makes me a PiG by your
standards, so be it.

Oink.
JS



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Clark
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:54 AM
To: WAI-GL
Subject: Re: Agenda April 22th



> 3. Conformance
> 
>     - defn of 3 groups
> 
>    - consensus about whether or not all of the 3rd group
>       need to be met to claim 3rd category of conformance?
> 
>    - what do we want to call the 3 levels of conformance
>          - should we coord w/EO
>          - is the naming more of a marketing than technical issue?)

Gregg continues to act as though everyone thinks there *should* be three

groups. The fact that Gregg holds this opinion is merely a fact, but it 
must not be confused with consensus or agreement.

It's at times like these when we get the impression that Gregg
Vanderheiden feels he is solely responsible for writing WCAG 2.0, while
other contributors are mere assistants. Actually, only PiGS would fall
into that category, but they are no more heeded than the rest of us when

Gregg has made up his mind.

I note Gregg's willingness to haul out procedure to back up the
imposition 
of his own personal opinion on the entire group.

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0070.html>

And Gregg, in that message, pretended that "consensus" means "majority
vote" rather than "unanimity." The W3C process documents permit a
definition of consensus in which nobody disagrees even though some may
abstain, which seems reasonable. There is no such thing, however, as
consensus in which some people disagree. Q.E.D.

<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#Consensus>

Here's a hint to the Participants in Good Standing and other Approved 
Persons who hang out on the teleconferences: Question the entire basis
of 
any discussion of fine-tuning details for "three levels." *We* haven't 
agreed there should be more than *two*.

-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 11:09:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT