The approach of just ducking controversy doesn't improve accessibility.
Making "requirements" couched in lots of subjective, unverifiable qualifying language resembles ducking controversy to me.
It attempts to put an immediate spec-writing and working-group benefit (namely, being able to move forward without objections) ahead of the user. This, IMHO, is unacceptable (and is counter to our design principles).
I don't think this kind of argument is productive. Using it, someone claiming to represent users could challenge any edit to the document. In other words, it's "wrapping yourself in the flag".
It also doesn't actually work, because it won't get any more consensus -- it will just move the objections from one group of people to another.
The first part of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second. - Rob
