This Wiki page is edited by participants of the Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Task Force participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

COGA Resolution Processes

From Cognitive Accessibility Task Force
Jump to: navigation, search

COGA Decision Policy (passed/agreed on - do not edit)


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 (for now COGA Resolutions)

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 “can’t live with.”
  • 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 in "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:

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


  • comments on opened issues should be from the task force. Please do not respond without going through the process
  • On 4 feb 2020 we decided that for issues can go to the list nd if we get 3 +1s then we can close them. See for Also for issues that are editorial items - 2 editors on a call they can close it. Subject line should include review in x number of days. Content of email: old language, new language. Info on who already approved.

Task/ Subgroup Leaders

A subgroub/task leader:

  • coordinates meeting
  • manages the deadlines
  • manages the subgroup pages (such as the wiki, issues opened etc)
  • reports back to coga
  • manages the communications between the group and the other working groups involved,
  • updates the task in the planning pages, and actions table,
    • includes adding new tasks as needed (often from responses from the other WG, such as requests for more info )
  • chairs subgroup calls
  • reports and problems and issues to tf facilitators

When to cc the task force is up to you but as a rough guide: when we have something to report or when additional and/or feedback is useful


A liaisons job is to communicate with the TF and another group. This includes

  • Notice if there is a topic that could do with input from coga, or a coga topic that could benefit from input from the other group
  • If there is an issue on the group that COGA should know about - make sure coga knows! (And for the other group)
  • Ask the TF facilitator for time on the next agenda. Remind them until you get it!
  • If there is a task, such as a potential review -updates the task in the actions table

Liaisons can also be a task leader when there is a task for COGA from the other group (but not always)