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

Re: Draft for process updates

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:29:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxyU-t2pntAq-PbBuLbcjM0s7rvQ4kUZj6KKKFtpvajU8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Why would other participants, who work for paid
​-up​
W3C members and who show up every week and do the hard work, get less of a
"vote" come final decision time?

You are effectively suggesting that because a company like TPG has multiple
​ (6)​​
members
​
 involved with this
​WG
, or that Deque
​ (@ 10,
or
​ IBM @ 7 participants, or Level Access @ 4, or​ Thompson Reuters & ETS @ 3
each, or Knowbility, Google, Microsoft, Pearson, Oracle and University of
Illinois @ 2 each, etc.
)
​ - that each W3C member that​
has more than one participant
​ in this WG (or any of the Task Forces related to this WG)​
, that they, as paid members, would have less
​"voting" ​
input than non-paying Invited Experts. I think those paid members would
disagree with your proposal out of hand
​ (ditto W3M and AC Reps)​
.

Additionally, are you suggesting that the current Chairs are unable to "*...be
aware of which participants work for the same (or related) Member
organizations and weigh their input accordingly...*"?

JF

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Where
> ​would
> that leave invited experts
> ​ like David McDonald and Makoto Ueki​
>  ?
>
> They each come from a company, I didn't say AC member company. So they
> would each get a vote.
>
> ** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
>
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, **Board Member and W3C Advisory
> Committee Rep for Knowbility *
>
> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
> = **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
>
> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
> <ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
>
> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
> never forget how you made them feel.......
>
> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
> dictate where we are going.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:34 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > each company gets 1 vote on CfCs and Rec Track consensus decisions.
>>
>>
>> Where
>> ​would
>> that leave invited experts
>> ​ like David McDonald and Makoto Ueki​
>> ?
>> ​ And if each Invited Expert gets a vote, why would other participants
>> who show up every week and do the hard work get less of a "vote"?​
>>
>> ​Additionally, the W3C's Official Process is less about "votes" and more
>> about consensus, and has (IMHO) already addressed this concern in the
>> Managing Dissent section of the official Process Document:
>>
>> *Managing Dissent*
>>
>>
>> In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a
>> group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair may record a
>> decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one Formal
>> Objection) so that the group can make progress (for example, to produce a
>> deliverable in a timely manner). *Dissenters cannot stop a group's work
>> simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision*. When the Chair
>> believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of
>> dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group should move on.
>>
>> Groups should favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is
>> preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that
>> cause strong objections from a few people. As part of making a decision
>> where there is dissent, the Chair is expected to be aware of which
>> participants work for the same (or related) Member organizations and weigh
>> their input accordingly.​
>>
>>
>> ​(source: https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#managing-dissent)​
>>
>>
>> Personally, I have faith in our Chairs, and their ability to weigh "block
>> votes" accordingly, and I would be quite concerned if we as a Working Group
>> sought to change the Official W3C Process
>> ​ - I will suggest it is out of scope for our group. The concern is not
>> unique to this Working Group, and while the Process may not be 'perfect', I
>> trust that it works sufficiently well that any other option is less
>> preferable at this time.
>>
>> JF​
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, where I wrote:
>>>
>>> > To do a non-private comment you'll need to wait for the survey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The survey is already available:
>>>
>>>    - A Web-Based Survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs
>>>    /35422/processfeedback/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Alastair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (NB: I will try to refrain from my phone in future!)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Foliot
>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>> Deque Systems Inc.
>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>
>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2018 16:30:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 July 2018 16:30:04 UTC