RE: "You call that a standard?"

> Respectfully, I disagree with you. The WCAG working group is open to anyone
> willing to donate time, it's not just a matter of money.

Nonetheless, one can and will be deemed not to be a participant in good 
standing (a value of 0 on the PiGS scale; other possible values are +1 and 
-1) if you do not meet the requirements for particpation in good standing. 
If you have any PiGS value other than +1, WAI can and, by the looks of it, 
*will* ignore what you say. It's all in the process documents. And some 
Working Group participants-- uniformly from the corporate and 
institutional sectors-- like it just fine, because it weeds the rest of us 
out. We can be safely ignored-- *by spec*.

> The bottom line of my viewpoint: you can make a difference in the WCAG if
> you want to, even if you can only donate time and effort. In my opinion,
> that makes it a democratic process.

One may contribute to the mailing lists and in other ways, but one's 
expertise can simply be ignored, while whatever participants in good 
standing say is immediately accepted at face value and rushed through 
implimentation. That's the reality: An *illusion* of democratization when 
one's contributions can be overruled at any time-- *unless* you can afford 
to become a PiGS. And that absolutely and without question is about money 
and time.

-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2004 15:50:54 UTC