- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:48:58 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
On 19/07/2016 21:21, Janina Sajka wrote: > The assumption here is that we don't want to burden ourselves with CfC > calls unnecessarily. Clearly, the operative term here relates to > necessity. Often our comments to other groups are frankly basic > accessibility guidance long established and well known, e.g. provide alt > for graphics, textual descriptions for complex graphics, etc. The CFC process is useful for people who find attending calls difficult but who still want to participate asynchronously - even when the thing requiring consensus appears relatively straight-forward. Our charter calls this out: "At charter time, the decision policy is under review within the group in order to develop a decision process that supports greater asynchronous participation and minimize dependence on weekly teleconferences." > > I would like to propose the following additional language for our > Decision Policy to explain when we do, and do not require a CfC, and as > a starting point to clarify our process. This is an early draft for your > consideration on list here, and in our upcoming teleconferences. > > Draft Decision Policy Addendum > > Not all APA dicisions require a formal CfC. > > A CfC is required whenever APA requests changes to normative language in a > W3C specification. > > A formal CfC is not required when APA resolves to send comments to a W3C > group: > > * On nonnormative language in their publication > > * When APA's comments reflect well established accessibility best > * practices guidance. > > * When there is no substantive disagreement in APA on the > * changes sought. For this purpose discussion of how best to > * present APA's comments does not constitute substantive > * disagreement. This seems a bit paradoxical. A CFC is the thing that determines whether there is substantive disagreement within the WG, beyond the people who happened to be on the call(s) where it was discussed. Whether something is "best practice" is too nebulous a thing to be the basis for deciding whether a CFC is needed or not - you need only read discussions in WCAG to know there is often enthusiastic disagreement over the most simple seeming recommendations! There would be uncertainty too. When comments include both normative and non-normative recommendations, would there be a CFC for all the comments or only the normative bits? How would someone reliably know? > > In all cases, whether or not a CfC is relied on, the substance of > comments must be fairly summarized in > APA email archives, and supported by a RESOLUTION: adopted during an APA > teleconference or face to face meeting. I think our current decision policy is clear, robust and easy to use - and it is intended to encourage participation from the WG as a whole. FWIW the ARIA WG recently adopted a useful approach to CFCs. When a resolution is reached on a call, an email is sent to the WG. The subject of the email includes the CFC topic, the period of the CFC, and the deadline for responding. The email itself points to the minuted resolution etc. This makes it easy for WG participants to quickly process a CFC and respond in the appropriate time. > > While APA members are free to voice their views to any W3C group, such > comments are not to be represented or construed as formal APA comments > without URI reference to the relevant APA RESOLUTION. This is a good point, but the counter-point is that if comments are made on behalf of the WG, the WG should have been given the opportunity to consent or object. Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2016 08:49:34 UTC