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: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:03:29 +0000
To: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB1115DED1615268C7F41F8A32C7C70@BY1PR02MB1115.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
So, just to be clear.  We are past the 2 day review period and in the opinion of the chairs (and staff contact) there are a few items that we should firm up before declaring this policy approved.

It sounds like most people feel that the policy is “good” or “good enough to give a try” but as this is a very important policy we want to make sure that we make the effort to make it as good as we can.

Josh and I will respond  to some points in this email thread (probably in a new thread to clarify the issues) and we can find a path forward.


From: Adam Solomon [mailto:adam.solomon2@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:29 AM
To: Alastair Campbell
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; Andrew Kirkpatrick; WCAG Editors; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: Re: Call For Consensus Process Review

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<mailto: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,


Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 13:04:00 UTC

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