Re: Call For Consensus Process Review

Gregg, I appreciate that it can be easier to have an interactive discussion
of hard issues in real time. It is even easier to have them face to face.
But we know that our current processes severely limit who can participate.
I think it is worth trying alternatives that are more inclusive. If they
don't work, then the WG will need to revisit them. But we know that the
current process also doesn't work in some dimensions.

Can you suggest modifications or alternatives to this process?

Loretta

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Boy howdy I know that making meeting times at any time is hard.  In fact
> the current time is one that I cannot,  and I have not been able to make
> many meetings since it moved from later in the day.
>
> But I do not think this is a good procedure - and I think it will lead to
> problems in the long run.
>
> First - it isn’t real (full) consensus if there objections. Even if they
> have been heard before.
>
>    - consensus is that everybody can live with it.
>
>
> Second - this leads to balkanizing rather than finding common ground.
> There isn’t the need to find common ground like there is when there is a
> need to reach (full) consensus.
>
> (NOTE: Although we never exercised it during the WCAG development - it IS
> already in the chairs prerogative to end debate and move on.   So what is
> proposed is not outside the chairs abilities now.)
>
> However, we never would have gotten WCAG 2.0 though as a consensus
> document (without objections) if we had done this (or if we had ever
> resorted to a vote - on anything).   And that is my worry here.
>
> I fear that it will also lead to lack of attendance at meetings — and that
> will mean the loss of the rich discussion and interaction that is important
> to building consensus and to really exploring ideas.
> (and if this is to replace meetings — then this goes double)
>
> So despite the fact that this sounds easier (it is) than figuring out how
> to solve the time/attendance problem — I think it is not a good idea.
>
> *gregg*
>
> ----------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
>
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> The WCAG Working Group is working to build greater engagement among
> participants, and as with many groups some of the main obstacles are
> factors of time and space.  Specifically, 11am Boston time is not an ideal
> time for participants from around the world to participate in a
> teleconference, but traditionally that is when key decisions are made
> within the working group.
>
> We feel that adopting a different decision-making process will help foster
> greater participation and on today’s teleconference the participants
> present approved a consensus procedure, but did so with a dependency on a
> review by the participants via the WCAG mailing list.
>
> We ask that participants read and review the proposed procedure, and reply
> to this list if you have any objections.  Positive comments are welcome
> also of course, but if no new objections are raised within two working days
> of this message then the new procedure will be approved.
>
> New procedure:
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Working_Group_Consensus_Procedure
> Meeting minutes from today’s meeting:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/05/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03
> Survey where draft was initially discussed by WG (pre-dates the wiki
> version above):
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20150512Misc/results#xcfcprop
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe Systems
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpatrick@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>