Re: Why Consensus? ...and how to raise issues

On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:46 PM, Joe Clark wrote:
>> It is also
>> helpful to attend because whether or not the group thought something
>> was a good idea or not often doesn't come through well in meeting
>> minutes.
>
> Then fix your damned minutes. How hard can it be to write these things
> down?

Hard. Harder when everyone scribing is a volunteer. Harder still to 
scribe, track the speaking queue, and talk at the same time, as the 
staff contact often does.

So. Pretty darn hard. Any attempt to capture live discussion is bound 
to lose data. You're a captioning expert, and you spend a good deal of 
time telling professionals how poorly they do it. We're open to 
suggestions, but "fix your damned minutes" is fairly unconstructive.

>> Even if you cannot go to the meetings, read the drafts and comment on
>> them regularly. Send emails to the w3c-wai-gl and/or
>> [17]public-comments-wcag20@w3.org lists, pointing out the draft you're
>> commenting on, the problem you have with it, and if at all possible,
>> potential solutions.
>
> That requirement is too onerous. It's certainly very nice to say that
> critics must solve the problems they identify

Very nice indeed. But that's not what I said. What I said was a 
"should", not a "must".

> but that is arguably what
> W3C staff, PiGS, and politburo members with day jobs should be doing.

And are doing, on the order of hundreds of issues raised on the 
guidelines and techniques documents, all in Bugzilla.

> If PiGS member A makes a statement, and some non-PiGS contributor X 
> says
> it's false and explains why, it is A's responsibility to fix it. It is
> certainly nice if X or someone else solves it, but (snip! -Ed.) merely
> pointing them out must suffice.

We are in violent agreement.

-
m

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 20:33:11 UTC