Re: CFC - WCAG 2.2 requirements document

My thoughts: 3 to 2 does not really constitute "substantial support". Could
you please explain that?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 10:28 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> AG Working Group members,
>
>
>
> As we have received substantially positive feedback leading up to this CfC
> and one objection (
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JulSep/0070.html),
> this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group.
>
>
>
> This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions
> .
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell
>
>
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Friday 19th July at 12pm (midday) Boston time.
>
>
>
> This CFC is for approval of the WCAG 2.2 requirements document.
>
> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/master/requirements/22/index.html
>
>
>
> The Working Group has discussed the document several times, most recently
> using a survey:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/22requirements-2/results
>
> And during a teleconference:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2019/06/18-ag-minutes.html#item06
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com / @alastc
>
>
>