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,

-Alastair
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