RE: Call For Consensus Process Review

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.

Thanks,
AWK

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,

-Alastair