W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: CFC - Approve Silver Decision Policy

From: Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:21:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL+jyYKp=x4x1BHJs9LK8kSX1sbUi3cD0=q0y2B_+82fn36xfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
AG Working Group and Silver TF members,



As we have received substantial negative feedback during this CfC, this CfC
fails and is not agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group.  We
will bring the discussion around handling objections first back to the TF
and then to the AG for approval before sending out a new CFC.



This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions.


Kind regards,


Rachael

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 12:09 PM Rachael Bradley Montgomery <
rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> wrote:

> Hello Wilco,
>
>
> The AG policy focuses on normative changes, and is less formal about
> informative updates. The Silver policy seems to incorporate that concept
> but without clearly drawing the distinction.  Alastair has suggested
> additional wording of: “For decisions being considered in meetings,
> objections must be raised immediately by participants in that meeting when
> there is a call for objections. * [insert] Participants not at the
> meeting must raise objections by the next meeting.*”
>
>
> This is the decision policy for the Silver Taskforce and Community Group
> so primarily applies to the taskforce and group meetings but if a subgroup
> makes a decision using this process, then it would represent the consensus
> of that particular subgroup.
>
>
> The flexibility about how a call for objections would be handled is
> intentional. They can be handled in several ways and we don't necessarily
> want to restrict that.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Rachael
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 5:37 AM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Chuck,
>> I have three minor concerns with the decision policy. It would be great
>> if these could be addressed:
>>
>> - If a decision is made on the call, there does not seem to be a way for
>> anyone who was not on the call to raise an objection. I would suggest that
>> any decisions made on a call be announced via e-mail, so that anyone who
>> couldn't attend still has the opportunity to raise their objections.
>> - It would be good to clarify that "meetings" here means just official
>> task force meetings, and that decisions can not be made by subgroups.
>> - There is no description of what form a "call for objections" can take.
>> For example, AG has a policy where we use a CFC e-mail, which can only be
>> about a single decision that has to be clear from the title. Some
>> description like that would go a long way to clarifying this.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:22 AM Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Call For Consensus — ends Friday, October 23th at 6pm Boston time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Working Group has discussed approving the Silver Decision Policy:
>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/decision-policy
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/decision-policy__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!NV8my_YWwoy5johoR3DYFLKC0GiX1r4G-RN1U7LNGG2s6pY9LsNhc_iaTXADZKIAKA$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have
>>> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
>>> being able to live with” this decision  policy, please let the group
>>> know before the CfC deadline.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Charles Adams
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Wilco Fiers*
>> Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>>
>>
>> Join me at axe-con <http://deque.com/axe-con> 2021: a free digital
>> accessibility conference.
>>
>
>
> --
> Rachael Montgomery, PhD
> Director, Accessible Community
> rachael@accessiblecommunity.org
>
> "I will paint this day with laughter;
> I will frame this night in song."
>  - Og Mandino
>
>
Received on Monday, 26 October 2020 11:22:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:38 UTC