Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1

+1  I too support Jason's comment.

For those unfamiliar or uncertain of W3C Process and Consensus, I urge you
to review the following: https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Consensus

JF

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com> wrote:

> +1 to Jason's comment.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 9:44 AM, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 8, 2017 3:30 PM
>
> As it stands just including *everything* whether it's good, bad or
> indifferent doesn't seem feasible and could reflect very badly on the
> group. We need quality control and require internal consensus that any new
> proposed SC is actually good enough for the editors draft - and the
> subsequent wider public review.
>
> *[Jason] *+1. I’ll be voting against any attempt to include all of the
> proposals, regardless of quality, in the working draft, and I strongly
> support the procedure that the chairs and staff contact have put forward.
> *[Jason] *
>
> ------------------------------
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion