From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 11:08 AM David: I think the concept of high inter reliability of experts is as good as we can get. AWK: I think that the "General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues” actually matches the way that the group operated in practice, and continues to do so. What we are really doing is following the WCAG and W3C process (see http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy), and our goal is unanimity, or an absence of objections. Whether this means that everyone actively agrees or if most people agree and the rest can live with it doesn’t really matter. I’m concerned about the “8 of 10” since it starts to feel like voting and that hasn’t been the way that we have operated historically. I think you’re conflating (1) how the working group reaches consensus, which as you describe, and (2) the standard of inter-rater reliability that the working group considers success criteria need to have in order to be included. The latter has nothing to do with voting – see my formulation of it earlier in this thread. ________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. ________________________________
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 15:13:51 UTC