W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Updating the AG Decision Policy

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2023-05-30 to 2023-06-08.

25 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Changes to Decision Policy

1. Changes to Decision Policy

The chairs propose revising some language in the AG Decision Policy that we will be using in the next charter.

The goals of these changes are to:

Clarify differences in the process for mature content and content that is earlier in the process,
Bring our process more in line with W3C and other group's process, and
Focus pre-CFC conversations on constructive conversation instead of objections.

Please review the Proposed Changes to Decision Policy (google doc with track changes), or the Github diff version and respond below.

If you want to make editorial changes, please create a copy of the google document and write the comments in that or list the needed changes in the comment field below. Do not comment in the document

Additional Context

The Proposed AGWG Charter points to the Decision Policy. The AC reviewed and approved the charter. Some AC members and the W3C Team expressed concerns about the differences from the W3C consensus process outlined in the decision policy.

The chair's hope is that the proposed changes will address the concerns raised, promote participation, and improve the group's speed while ensuring we produce a high-quality standard.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
I agree with the proposed changes	15
I agree with the proposed changes with some adjustment	4
Something else	6

Details

Responder	Changes to Decision Policy	Comments
Shawn Lauriat	I agree with the proposed changes
Julie Romanowski	I agree with the proposed changes
Steve Faulkner	I agree with the proposed changes
Chris Wilson	I agree with the proposed changes
Tzviya Siegman	Something else	I will not stand in the way of passing this as is, but this seems heavyweight for a working group decision policy. Most WGs refer to the Process Consensus section https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#Consensus and add a bit more information in the charter. What information does this add that isn't covered by the boiler plate that is used in most charters? (See https://www.w3.org/2023/05/media-wg-charter.html#decisions and https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/charter-2023.html#decisions for examples). Does having a policy that is so different from other WGs improve the work mode in AGWG? What is the value of differentiating this WG from others in this way?
Jason Khurdan	I agree with the proposed changes
Chaals Nevile	I agree with the proposed changes	They can be improved further. I find the current draft acceptable, but would like to see the following additional changes: - In the paragraph on non-mature documents, clarifying more directly what "addressed" means seems likely to be helpful. - For point 1.1 of the numbered steps, the referenced page is apparently outdated, and provides a vast number of possible channels, outlines a further decision-making process, and seems unsuitable. It would be helpful to directly list the expected channels, including whether e.g. subgroups are a legitimate place to discuss any topic and how to bring a discussion from a venue that is not recognised as appropriate to the attention of WG participants. This is important, because expecting people to monitor a large range of inputs severely restricts the range of people who can effectively contribute to the work. - In point 2, remove the proposed extension of the first sentence, currently "When the Chairs believe that the group is ready to come to a decision they will propose a resolution for a vote using the W3C consensus process" so it becomes "When the Chairs believe that the group is ready to come to a decision they will propose a resolution". - In point 2.3, it seems reasonable to incorporate input in a teleconference as if it were made to the Call for Consensus, if they are asking the same question. - It is not clear in 5.2 if the consideration applies to objections whose substance has already been raised in discussions, or is intended to apply to objections raised in the CfC, whether or not they have been discussed before. It is also not obvious that only the objectors need to be satisfied by something that has been done to address an objection, since such changes may in turn mean someone who initially approved a proposed decision no longer does. A light review of the grammar would be helpful - there are a few places where sentences are grammatically unsound, making them harder to interpret because they rely on colloquial expressions.
Wendy Reid	Something else	I do not think the additional Decision Policy is necessary. A significant amount of the text refers to the processes of the Process document, or is highly similar to the processes laid out there. In the few places where the policy differs or makes clarifications (like the time period for a CfC), I believe this can be explained in the charter document itself. We are no different from any other working group within W3C, our decision policy should be aligned with the rest of the organization.
Bruce Bailey	I agree with the proposed changes with some adjustment	I very much appreciate the work going into this document and agree with the proposed changes as they all reflect improvements. I do think AGWG benefits from having its Decision Policy detailed out in this fashion. It was not clear to me if "group" always means AGWG or it is sometimes referring to a subgroup activity. Also not clear to me is if "review" is synonymous with "wide public review" and a dated edition published to TR space? I have several editorial suggestions (and some additional comments on reasons for my edits) here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LqV_48S9b70FU8p335c-oSrOg0FOr2YZ3KmK7lRLino/
John Foliot	Something else	Under the heading "Placeholder, Exploratory, Developing and Refining Content" it is disappointing to see the second sentence: <p>During discussion on a topic, participants are welcome to raise objections freely to help ensure that all available information can be considered and contribute to the best possible decision. However, when the Chairs issue a Call for Consensus, objections should not be raised unless the individual has strong technical reasons that the decision is the wrong one in spite of discussion, and the individual cannot accept the decision. Compromise on points that the individual considers suboptimal but can accept is an essential part of group decisions that must meet various requirements.</p> ...has been removed. It leaves the impression that "Objections (based upon) strong technical reasons" are not welcomed at the earlier stages of content development, and work must continue until it is "Mature" before an Objection can be filed.
Andrew Somers	I agree with the proposed changes with some adjustment	The revision cites several times the “W3C consensus process”, however, there doesn’t seem to be any link or reference regarding that process. When the W3C consensus process is mentioned there should be a hyperlink to the document that defines that process.
Léonie Watson	I agree with the proposed changes	I support the updates as a step in the right direction, but like Tzviya and Wendy, think it's time AG simply referenced the Consensus section of the W3C Process.
Patrick Lauke	I agree with the proposed changes	The clarification/change away from "unanimous agreement" to the established concept of "consensus" as used elsewhere is a good one, and I'm glad to see it spelled out.
Detlev Fischer	Something else	My view (as expressed before and elsewhere) is that the WG has spent far too much time agonizing about process, policies, models, internal organisation and the like rather than focussing on reorganizing substantive requirements. All this might have been necessary, I simply don't have the overview to be able to tell (but it worries me that I no longer have the feeling that I can achieve an overall understanding of "what is happening" in the WG, including its subgroups --I simply don't have the time for that). The substance of the decision policy as presented here seems OK, though I agree with John Foliot it should not appear to discourage early dissent on technical grounds. If the proposal is adopted, I also agree with Chaal's proposals, they seem to make sense. But overall, sympathize with Tzviya Siegman's and Wendy Reid's view that it is preferable to align the policy with the general W3C policy. Having a custom decision making policy creates a subtle deviation the impact of which is hard to predict for someone in my position as invited expert. Is it really necessary? So my vote would have to be "Something else". Note however that I can 'live with' the proposed changes - anything that will allow us to move forward to substance is welcome.
Ian Pouncey	I agree with the proposed changes
Jonathan Avila	I agree with the proposed changes
Lori Oakley	I agree with the proposed changes
Wilco Fiers	I agree with the proposed changes with some adjustment	1. Splitting the decision up between mature and non-mature leaves a lot of gaps. Most of the work this group does isn't using these labels. Where do WCAG 2 errata's, ACT rules, WCAG 3 methods, WCAG2ICT, etc. fit in? 2. I don't think we should remove the sentence about striving for unanimous agreement for mature content. Accessibility is largely about addressing issues that only a small minority of people face. I think we need to have this in here, to send the message that we will listen to minority perspectives, and will try to address someone's concerns, even if they're the only person to speak up about it.
Rachael Bradley Montgomery	I agree with the proposed changes	Regarding Wilco's comment about content without maturity levels: Chairs assumed informative content outside the guidelines document (notes and understanding/How To documents) would be treated as mature only at the points that require approval to publish (First Public Working Draft and Move from Draft to Note). We can add a sentence to that effect to clarify.
Laura Carlson	Something else	Consensus building is a process involving a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders and seek a unanimous agreement. Groups that focus on making decisions through consensus building tend to reach agreements that are more stable, more efficient, and wiser than groups that make decisions through majority rule. Not overlooking the value of consensus building and searching for the best possible outcome for everyone including those in the minority and those participating early in the process is indeed something to strive for. And then having a process to move forward when consensus can't be reached is prudent. So to me, it seems counter intuitive to remove/edit the following 2 paragraphs if the Working Group indeed wants to build consensus. 1. "The Working Group strives for unanimous agreement. However, at times unanimity is not possible, and for the sake of continuing to work on important topics the group must arrive at a consensus decision and move forward. In the course of establishing consensus it is critical that all participants have the opportunity to express their views for consideration so that all relevant information can be used in arriving at the conclusion." 2. "During discussion on a topic, participants are welcome to raise objections freely to help ensure that all available information can be considered and contribute to the best possible decision. However, when the Chairs issue a Call for Consensus, objections should not be raised unless the individual has strong technical reasons that the decision is the wrong one in spite of discussion, and the individual cannot accept the decision. Compromise on points that the individual considers suboptimal but can accept is an essential part of group decisions that must meet various requirements." I find value in AGWG having a Decision Policy and thank the Chairs for working hard on it.
Daniel Bjorge	I agree with the proposed changes
Jennifer Strickland	I agree with the proposed changes with some adjustment	The intent of my following question is to make sure I understand any potential unstated assumptions about conversation guidelines. Sometimes our discussions seem to meander. It can take quite a while to get to a point. Is there any possible clarification on the following sentence? "During discussion on a topic for mature content, participants are encouraged to raise concerns freely to help ensure that all available information can be considered and contribute to the best possible decision." Is anything open for discussion at this point, in any way, or is there any guidance for participants on what kind of discussion should happen and in what form? Some folks who do an admirable job of thinking about what they want to say before they speak. It helps the discussion stay clear. I often plan to say something, jot it down, reflect, and I realize I clarified the point myself then don't need to speak at all. I want to acknowledge that keeping discourse productive is difficult and subjective. My intent here is to ensure that I fully understand any nuance that may not be stated.
Jeanne F Spellman	Something else	Just use the W3C Process.
Todd Libby	I agree with the proposed changes
Jaunita George	I agree with the proposed changes