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

Re: Agenda April 22th

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <32672400.1082574666566.JavaMail.root@bigbird.psp.pas.earthlink.net>
To: W3C Web Content <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Ditto on Doyle's comments.................:-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Doyle Burnett <dburnett@sesa.org>
Sent: Apr 21, 2004 11:55 AM
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, W3C Web Content <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Agenda   April 22th


To The Group -

As a person who marches to his own drum (or other instruments), I can say
that I do not feel a one-sided atmosphere when working toward consensus
within the working group.  We have, as a whole, individuals with strong
convictions which sometimes makes consensus more challenging but that's
probably a good thing.

The numbers that arose out of the notes [1] were merely a simple show of
hands - NOT a hard fast vote.  As I recall, someone asked for the numbers
(again, not a vote) in a post to the list - right?  Also, consensus allows
for members to disagree so long as they can live with a decision and not
sabotage what has been agreed to.

Trust me, everyone who writes comments to the working group gets listened to
- it's a good process and I feel it works.  It's slow but it works!  It'd be
nice to keep things positive and have regard for all of the hard work many
individuals are putting forth.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0070.html

Sincerely -

Doyle

Doyle Burnett
Education and Training Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
Special Education Service Agency
dburnett@sesa.org
Www.sesa.org
-- 



On 4/21/04 6:54 AM, "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org> wrote:

> 
>> 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*.
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 15:37:28 GMT

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