Re: Change in process?

+1
On Feb 9, 2017 6:06 AM, "Léonie Watson" <tink@tink.uk> wrote:

> I tend to agree that the process is confusing at the moment. It's
> difficult to know what to review, where to comment or when to respond to a
> survey.
>
> When a decision is taken on a call or at a meeting, it's supposed to be
> sent out to the entire WG as a Call For Consensus (CFC). Only if the CFC
> passes is the decision confirmed and enacted upon.
>
> This may be happening, but if so I must admit I've missed it somewhere in
> all the emails and Github comments.
>
> Léonie
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
> On 09/02/2017 13:46, lisa.seeman wrote:
>
>> this process is not really working. There is a huge curve for people to
>> either understand the wcag constraints or to understand the new
>> disabilities and how they use the web. Our methodology relies on
>> extensive  research and it gets lost in the disjointed github comment.
>>
>> After 2.1 first draft is out I suggest we have a dedicated call on each
>> SC or use need where we focus on understand the issues, talk though the
>> use cases and then move on to solving issues with the wording. I don't
>> think they need to be on the main WCAG call, but people should sign up
>> on which SC they are interested in joining that subcall. After the call
>> the new wording can go to a discussion on the list and then a call for
>> consensus , but people should vote if they were on the call, involved in
>> drafting the SC or at least read all the relevant minutes
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>