Re: Process for WCAG 3.0 document updates

Hi Alastair,

> Personally, I see institutional knowledge as part of technical merit,
assuming it is within the intended scope of the work.

I think you've articulated the problem fully in that response: your
'personal understanding', and the 'assumption' that everyone else is
working under that same understanding. In standards work, I loathe leaving
something (anything!) to assumptions and personal understandings, instead
of clearly articulated and consensused agreements.

Can we 'test the waters' to ensure we are all working under the same
assumptions and understandings here too please?

JF

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:26 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> > “ Excised from the quote however is this critical caveat:”
>
> The quote was pulled from the AG decision policy, the bit you quoted from
> is from “managing dissent” in the W3C process doc.
>
> I wasn’t trying to hide it, in fact if you look at the speaker notes it
> was included in slide 10, but we were running long and this aspect was
> intended as *context* for the proposal, it isn’t something we are
> changing as part of the proposal.
>
>
>
> > I'd like to see an additional bullet there that references
> "institutional/anecdotal knowledge and information".
>
>
>
> Again, we aren’t proposing an update to the decision policy, that was
> context.
>
>
>
> Personally, I see institutional knowledge as part of technical merit,
> assuming it is within the intended scope of the work.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"