W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Should we use the W3C Decision Policy?

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2023-06-14 to 2023-06-19.

29 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Should the next charter default to the W3C standard decision policy?

1. Should the next charter default to the W3C standard decision policy?

The AGWG references the W3C Decision policy but also has maintained a custom decision policy as a supplement. During last week's discussion about proposed changes (Minutes), there was wide support for exploring the option of replacing the custom decision policy with the standard W3C decision policy, including a few additions to the charter.

Please review the Google doc that presents the proposed changes and a comparison across documents or the following links, which present the same information in a different form:

Do you

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Agree with using the W3C decision policy	25
Agree with using the W3C decision policy with some adjustments (Please include adjustments in comments)	2
Want to continue using a custom decision policy (If this option gets consensus we will continue discussion of changes from last week's survey)	1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder	Should the next charter default to the W3C standard decision policy?	Comments
John Foliot	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Gregg Vanderheiden	Agree with using the W3C decision policy with some adjustments (Please include adjustments in comments)	I think the new process is generally good. - It does ,and needs to continue to, recognize that "voluntary technical standards" (most of what W3C does) and "standards that may used in regulatory actions" are very different. - So consensus is more important for regulatory bound standards - as is "ability to apply this everywhere and to all content by all content creator that might be regulated" (this is not all content creators) Two comments. 1) striving for conformance is key. Taking formal votes where not strictly necessary very dangerous as it very quickly can devolve into an argument about who has the most representation on the group. So caution here. I think the new process has ways of getting there including the excellent language about objections needing to be clear, state why, state counter proposals -- and that work happens after an objection to try to clear it. The careful documentation - esp of both sides - can greatly facilitate that. 2) I worry about the phrase "Groups should favor proposals that create the weakest objections." - This seems to say -- if you want it to go your way - be obstinate and make strong objections -- and it will win out over people who are more accommodating. - I think a slight rewording to be "Groups should favor proposals with strongest arguments and rationale" rather than talking about how 'strong' the objection is.
Mike Gifford		Ideally there would be a "unsure" category to select. I really have no idea what the implications of these are and would like to stand aside as a new member.
Peter Bossley	Agree with using the W3C decision policy with some adjustments (Please include adjustments in comments)	Our current custom decision policy has clear guard rails for CFCs and requires that they be delivered with time for participants to have ample opportunity to weigh in. This specificity is missing from the W3C decision policy. If we can't add this to a future charter to ensure that future group chairs uphold a strong standard then I support maintaining the custom decision policy. Big decisions like the ones we make around WCAG deserve to be thoughtfully challenged and we should consider the time it takes to move things forward to be a benefit of strong participation in the group.
Léonie Watson	Agree with using the W3C decision policy	Using the standard W3C policy will enable AG to start making pragmatic and democratic progress, where it has struggled to do so under the constraint of its custom policy.
Patrick Lauke	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Steve Faulkner	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Chaals Nevile	Agree with using the W3C decision policy	Essentially, the W3C policy as I understand it lets us continue to use the existing policy - there is a lot of flexibility and that is given to the chairs to handle as implementation detail. The most helpful thing about using the standard policy is that people know it. Then they just have to learn the specific ways the WG implements it, which amounts to roughly the same work as learning a custom policy, but doesn't present as quite the same "barrier to entry" IMHO. So I am not very worried about how this particular decisions goes. I think this group is very very procedural, although I think I understand why. I would like to see effort continue to be put into reaching decisions and moving forward, with rough consensus and overall trust of the working group. But that's what everyone wants, I suspect, and doesn't provide enough direction to be directly actionable in most non-trivial cases.
Ian Pouncey	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Jennifer Strickland	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Tzviya Siegman	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Bruce Bailey	Agree with using the W3C decision policy	I agree with using the W3C decision policy, but I am comfortable with the alternatives. I will mention that, historically with WCAG 2.0, there were occasions that normative phrasing was changed because of one person's strong perspective. That only happened because the group strived for 100% consensus and avoided majority voting. The minority position was allowed the time and space to articulate their perspective. I do not think that if the WG (back then) used only the W3C standard decision policy, that those good outcome could not have happened. (Sorry for the double negative.) The W3C decision policy has evolved since then.
Chris Loiselle	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Todd Libby	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Jeanne F Spellman	Agree with using the W3C decision policy	We can still use the work done on the custom policy as a way of operating, without making it a formal decision policy. A formal decision policy cannot be changed until the next charter, but we can use the work done on the labels (placehoder, exploratory, developing, refining, mature) and update it as we discover unanticipated issues. It is more flexible and will help us have the structure that will enable faster work.
Wendy Reid	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Detlev Fischer	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Rachael Bradley Montgomery	Agree with using the W3C decision policy	I am also comfortable with the updated version of our previous decision policy that was surveyed last week. We have learned a lot over the past year and I think either can work.
Luis Garcia	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Daniel Bjorge	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Matt Garrish	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Makoto Ueki	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Stefan Schnabel	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Oliver Keim	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Michael Gower	Agree with using the W3C decision policy	I do not have strong feelings about this either way. I have seen the chairs actively taking the 'pulse' of the participants during discussions and seeking comments from anyone who signals a less than positive response (i.e., 0 on +1/-1). I have also seen all working members striving to understand divergent opinions and incorporate feedback. The more that is carried out, the less likely we are to encounter a lack of consensus on CFC processes.
Mary Jo Mueller	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Laura Carlson	Agree with using the W3C decision policy
Wilco Fiers	Want to continue using a custom decision policy (If this option gets consensus we will continue discussion of changes from last week's survey)	A couple points in particular concern me. - I'm surprised the chairs want to go back to a CFC for every change in WCAG 3. I feel like for people who wanted more flexibility to put things out before they were fully worked out, this was a big hurdle. Do we really want to go back to that? - I'm not keen on the idea that there will be different channels in which decisions can get made, and that which channel is used can be changed without discussing topics like the accessibility of that channel. - It is not clear to me how and when decisions can be made on non-normative content. Is the only common denominator that a chair needs to be involved to assess consensus? Can that be delegated, for example to a task force or subgroup facilitator? - As chairs, how are you going to determine if consensus has been reached on a GitHub issue for example, if most of the group isn't participating in that thread? Will not reading a GitHub thread be considered as a silent support? By that same logic, will not participating in a task force or subgroup be treated as support for decisions of that group? I'm okay with a new approach, provided we talk through it properly. But I think there are benefits to keeping a better fleshed-out process document for ourselves, and that does have my preference.
John Kirkwood	Agree with using the W3C decision policy