Re: Draft for process updates

 Where
​would
that leave invited experts
​ like David McDonald and Makoto Ueki​
 ?

They each come from a company, I didn't say AC member company. So they
would each get a vote.

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*

*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, **Board Member and W3C Advisory
Committee Rep for Knowbility *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
<ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:34 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> > each company gets 1 vote on CfCs and Rec Track consensus decisions.
>
>
> Where
> ​would
> that leave invited experts
> ​ like David McDonald and Makoto Ueki​
> ?
> ​ And if each Invited Expert gets a vote, why would other participants who
> show up every week and do the hard work get less of a "vote"?​
>
> ​Additionally, the W3C's Official Process is less about "votes" and more
> about consensus, and has (IMHO) already addressed this concern in the
> Managing Dissent section of the official Process Document:
>
> *Managing Dissent*
>
>
> In some cases, even after careful consideration of all points of view, a
> group might find itself unable to reach consensus. The Chair may record a
> decision where there is dissent (i.e., there is at least one Formal
> Objection) so that the group can make progress (for example, to produce a
> deliverable in a timely manner). *Dissenters cannot stop a group's work
> simply by saying that they cannot live with a decision*. When the Chair
> believes that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of
> dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, the group should move on.
>
> Groups should favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is
> preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that
> cause strong objections from a few people. As part of making a decision
> where there is dissent, the Chair is expected to be aware of which
> participants work for the same (or related) Member organizations and weigh
> their input accordingly.​
>
>
> ​(source: https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#managing-dissent)​
>
>
> Personally, I have faith in our Chairs, and their ability to weigh "block
> votes" accordingly, and I would be quite concerned if we as a Working Group
> sought to change the Official W3C Process
> ​ - I will suggest it is out of scope for our group. The concern is not
> unique to this Working Group, and while the Process may not be 'perfect', I
> trust that it works sufficiently well that any other option is less
> preferable at this time.
>
> JF​
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, where I wrote:
>>
>> > To do a non-private comment you'll need to wait for the survey.
>>
>>
>>
>> The survey is already available:
>>
>>    - A Web-Based Survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs
>>    /35422/processfeedback/
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>> (NB: I will try to refrain from my phone in future!)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>