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

Re: Call For Consensus Process Review

From: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 12:28:40 +0300
Message-ID: <CALKv3=gNUN-FMO+exwBmf48KVgke+-eQFyv0KQri16Md1sCUwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: 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>
I agree with Gregg. Let's not lower the bar just yet. Maybe for WCAG 3
there might arise a need to tweak the process to get more participation.
But for now the group discussions should we kept intact.

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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 09:29:08 UTC

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