Re: Call for consensus - longdesc to CR

> On Jul 28, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 
> James Craig writes:
>>> Furthermore, it is arguable, and I do assert that the DescribedAt
>>> addition to ARIA-1.1 did indeed have consensus at the time it was
>>> introduced. Need I remind everyone that consensus is NOT unanimity
>>> according to published W3C process? The definition we are called to work
>>> with is set forth at:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus
>> 
>> By that definition, it was consensus only because my very vocal dissent did not not take the form of a Formal Objection. 
>> 
> Correct. You were the only voice opposed. It had nothing to do with
> objections, formal or informal.

It's possible I was the only person to voice opposition during in the conference call where the vote was cast. In previous discussions, I was not the only person to voice concern.

If we're going to use the term "consensus" this way, then we should only use it during transitional times (WD->CR for example), when there has been sufficient opportunity to file a formal objection. A conference call survey with dissent (as was the case here) would not meet the criteria for consensus by either definition.

James

Received on Monday, 28 July 2014 21:18:53 UTC