W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2015

RE: Call For Consensus Process Review

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 01:25:10 +0000
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
CC: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB1115B5FC9D47CA9A3FEF6A36C7D90@BY1PR02MB1115.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Gregg,
Some responses…

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.
We agree that the basis for consensus if whether people can live with a decision, and in the second to last paragraph this is spelled out.

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.

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)

This may result in shorter meetings, or it may result in more focused meetings, that is yet to be determined.  The group does believe that this will allow more participants to be active, just as you are being active right now in a way that you otherwise haven’t been able to be.

Being able to do more asynchronous work is definitely one of the benefits of this change.  That will allow more people to be more involved, and that is a very good thing.

Perhaps we commit to reviewing this policy in 6-12 months when we have the ability to look back with some data and implementation experience?

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.

To keep this CFC process in line with what we are proposing for the CFC process, are you saying that you cannot live with the proposal as it is?

AWK



On May 12, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto: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<mailto:akirkpatrick@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility


Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 01:25:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:19 UTC