[DRAFT] Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Decision Policy


The Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force (COGA) strives to reach consensus via unanimous agreement.

Small items

such as wording changes or normal issue responses that will be part of a final CFC later has the following process:

  • Agreement on the email list or
  • Agreement on the call

Medium items

such as important issue responses (such as an issue from  the tag, or other working group)

  • Agreement on the email list and
  • Agreement on the call
  • All decisions are recorded on a wiki page with date and link

Large items

such as asking the parent group to open a cfc publication

  • Agreement on the call and
  • Agreement on the email list with at least 2 working days and
  • Clear wording on the email to the list with attention grabbing subject line and clear instructions and deadlines such as calling it a CFC and using that template
  • All decisions are recorded on a wiki page with date and link


  • Facilitators encourage discussion to continue until all points of view have been expressed and the group has considered the variety of information presented.
  • Facilitators encourage all participants¬† to express their views.
  • Discussion may include outreach outside the call (emails, surveys,etc)
  • COGA strives to use technology that people who want to participate can use. This is especially important for decisions.
  • COGA strives to have a review by a representative of each disability group or minority affected by important¬† decisions.
  • During discussion, participants can raise objections freely.


  • COGA strives to get a quorum for responses. Quorum depends on the context.¬†
    • Typically, at least in a call there should be at least 4 non-leadership members present who¬† agree.¬†
    • If Facilitators say that a lack of response will be considered agreement, less people have to agree to reach quorum. (But they should have had the opportunity to respond)
  • If objections to a proposed agreement are raised, the facilitators should try and find an alternative that everyone can live with
  • COGA strives to provide enough time for participants to consider before making a decision.
  • When finalizing a decision facilitators can give a time limit and time table for objections.¬†
  • When discussion is done and the group is making a decision, participants should only raise objections that they ‚Äúcan‚Äôt live with.‚ÄĚ
    • Compromise on points people can "live with" is an essential part of decisions.¬†
    • The facilitators can allow a decision to go through with some objections if a significant majority approves the decision.
  • Decisions should ideally be based on research-supported recommendations.

Parent groups

The Accessibility Guidelines (AG)  and Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Groups use their own decision policies:

Consensus from the Working Groups is required to publish content.



Stage 1. For each item

  • Agreement on the list or
  • Agreement on the call

Stage 2. At the end for all of approved terms

  • CFC type email
  • Try to get review by one or more reps of each disability group / minority¬† involved¬†


Our process for issues, which has gone though TF consensus is:

  1. Take an issue (assign it to you)
  2. Make a proposal. (currently we have a google doc for proposals - see our action/todo list)
  3. Inform  the list
  4. Once we have four +1 and no objections you can answer the issue and close it

Note: comments on opened issues should be from the task force. Please do not respond without going through the process

Back to Top