Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
56 lines (40 loc) · 8.29 KB

ACT-Task-Force-Decision-Policy.md

File metadata and controls

56 lines (40 loc) · 8.29 KB
Raw

[Draft] ACT Task Force Decision Policy

This document explains the decision process of the Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force (TF) of the W3C Accessibility Guidelines (AG) Working Group. The scope of work of the ACT Task Force is documented in its Work Statement.

The ACT Task Force follows the W3C Process Document regarding consensus and decisions. This document provides additional details specific to the ACT Task Force about its decision-making process and to facilitate later decisions by the AG Working Group.

Goals

The ACT Task Force strives to reach consensus via unanimous agreement. 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 a conclusion. Consensus indicates that a substantial number of individuals in the group support a given proposal and that any objections are thoroughly considered.

During the discussion of a topic, participants are invited to raise comments to help ensure that all available information can be considered and contribute to the best possible decision. However, when all views raised have been considered and the facilitators indicate a discussion is approaching the decision point, objections can be raised when the individual strongly believes the decision is the wrong one in spite of discussion, and the individual cannot "live with" the decision. Compromise on points that the individual considers suboptimal but can "live with" is an essential part of group decisions that has to meet various requirements. The procedures described below support the ACT Task Force to address such situations of differing perspectives.

Procedures

The following procedures apply to all aspects of ACT Task Force work, as defined by its Work Statement.

  1. For rule development, we follow the ACT Ruleset Review Process, which is essentially:
    1. The ACT TF uses GitHub for submitting rules for consideration, showing surveys done on the submission, documenting issues found, and following-up on changes made to address the issues.
    2. The ACT TF discusses survey results in weekly meetings and opens an issue to track comments made in the survey.
    3. Rule submitters handle and resubmit rules when they are deemed ready for another ACT TF review.
    4. The ACT TF tracks progress and decisions for all rules in the Rule Publication Tracking table.
  2. Discussion on a topic proceeds until the ACT TF facilitators believe that all points of view have been expressed and the group has considered the variety of information presented.
    1. Discussion can take place in any of the ACT TF channels - including, but not limited to, email, surveys, GitHub pull requests, comment threads in GitHub issues or pull requests, and in teleconferences.
  3. When the ACT TF facilitators believe that the group is ready to come to a decision, they announce the proposed decision during a meeting. When a proposed decision is accepted during a meeting, the ACT TF facilitators send a Call for Consensus (CfC) in an email to the Task Force's mailing list. The CfC remains open for a minimum of two working days.
    1. The CfC is open to responses from all group members.
    2. The CfC will be for a single topic, though for ACT rules, the CFC could include multiple rules.
    3. The CfC will include any relevant pointers, including to the current version of the rule, relevant discussion, resolved issues, pull requests, surveys, email threads, or meeting minutes to give the context of the decision being made.
    4. The results of the CfC are announced at the next ACT TF meeting following the CfC close.
    5. Editorial issues do not require a CfC. Any concerns about what is deemed editorial can be brought to the attention of the TF facilitators privately or in group communications (through email or in meetings).
  4. Evaluating the Call for Consensus (CfC)
    1. If no objections are received by the deadline, the draft decision becomes a formal decision of the task force.
    2. If objections are received but the TF facilitators believe the objections have already been considered as far as is possible and reasonable, and the reviewers providing the objections can "live with” the decision, the draft decision becomes a formal decision of the task force.
    3. If objections are received that the TF facilitators believe present substantive new information or if the TF facilitators believe there is not a clear consensus in the task force, they will reopen the discussion, as detailed in section 3.3.4 of the W3C Process Document (Reopening a Decision When Presented With New Information).
    4. If task force member(s) continue to disagree and the TF facilitators do not believe it presents substantive new information, or it does not meet the criteria established for adding new normative content, the TF facilitators may decide the draft decision becomes a formal decision of the Task Force despite the objection. The TF facilitators should notify AG Working Group chairs if there is sustained dissent on critical topics.
    5. Decisions are made identifiable in meeting minutes, in the subject line of archived email message, and in comments in related GitHub issues, etc. Any sustained objections are clearly documented as part of these decisions and are also communicated to AG Working Group chairs when related work items are raised to AG Working Group.
  5. If an objection is raised after a decision is ratified, the TF facilitators will evaluate the objection to determine whether to reopen the discussion and work to address the issue.
  6. In the rare situation where a formal objection is raised, the TF facilitators, AG Working Group chairs, and staff contact(s) will come to an agreement about the issue and work to address the issue as described in section 3.3.3 of the W3C Process Document (Recording and Reporting Formal Objections). The outcome may be to record a decision with objections per section 3.3.2 of the W3C Process Document (Formally Addressing an Issue).

Related Policies

The Accessibility Guidelines Working Group as a whole uses its own decision policy. Consensus from the Working Group is required to publish normative content, and ACT Rules, and may be required to publish informative content, depending on the content and publication mechanism. The ACT TF uses its own decision policy to facilitate discussion and consensus within the group, and to substantiate its proposals to the AG Working Group when seeking AG Working Group consensus.

Other aspects of Consensus are defined in the W3C Process Document, including Votes (section 3.4) and Appeal of a Chair’s Decision (section 3.5). If a participant believes the task force facilitators have not exercised sound judgment in following this policy, they should express their concern first to one of the ACT Task Force facilitators, escalating if needed to the AG Working Group chairs or the AG staff contact, and further escalating if needed to the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Lead.

In all discussions, everyone involved is expected to follow the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, treating other participants with respect, acknowledging different perspectives, and respecting various communication styles.

Ratification

  • 29-October-2020: Approved by the ACT Task Force
  • DD-Month-YYYY: Approved by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

History

  • 23 September 2020: Initial draft.
  • 20 October 2020: Editorial updates.
  • 29 October 2020: Editorial updates.