Re: Draft for process updates

I am sorry many in the WG today also missed another experience from the
past when one company (a browser vendor) tried to control the direction of
this WG and specification, to the detriment of others. One vote per company
is not an usual paradigm in working groups. All may participate.

** 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 12:29 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> 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
>