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

Re: Call For Consensus Process Review

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 09:53:17 +0100
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D17B71A1.278D1%acampbell@nomensa.com>
I am in favour of asynchronous methods as well, although Greg’s point did make me think about that:
"The problem is that - since I wasn’t present for the full discussion - I don’t think I should get a chance to object.    This does allow broader participation but unless people read all the emails — and the discussion is held entirely by email — a person objecting is objecting with out participating fully in the discussion.”

However, I think that is covered in point 3.2:
"If objections are received but the chairs believe the objections have already been considered and addressed and there is an overall consensus, the draft decision becomes a formal decision of the Working Group with objections. Objections are recorded as an appendix to the formal decision.”

It would be nice for the chairs to politely point the un-informed objector to the relevant discussion if that wan’t in the original call for consensus (especially as the sources can be more widespread), but overall it seems covered.

Kind regards,

Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 08:53:54 UTC

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