See also: IRC log
jo: first off, good standing...
for this charter, we'll be more strict about maintaining
records on good standing... wanted to make sure everyone was
aware of that...
... things like, if you are a member of the group, you need to
answer to the surveys, come to teleconferences, etc... in the
last charter, we ended up with lots of regrets all the
time
... any comments about that?
Magnus: i was a bit surprising to see how many were in bad standing in the group... curious about how they got bad standing?
<dom> Current view of the group
jo: i think it was the crossover from the old charter to the new charter
dom: not quite sure where the bad standing stats come from... i think we should reset the flags and wait for us to define rules. i'll clean up the list
jo: anything else on good standing?
<dom> [everybody is back in good standing for the time being]
jo: reports from taskforces... from the content transformation group: we're still looking for a leader of the group... a new draft of the document should appear shortly (today/tomorrow)
<jo> CT Draft
jo: on to checker... sean is not here, so very briefly: a number of bugs have been worked through, work continuing... target of january for beta release
<jo> Poll
<dom> results
jo: according to the mobile OK
pro poll, the answer is a fairly solid "yes"... since kai and
archer are not on the call, there's not much we can say except
that assuming we can find someone to act as leader, it looks
like it is going ahead
... let's put it on hold until the next time kai is on the call
to see if he wants to lead the TF
... has anyone had a chance to look at the accessibility
document?
<jo> Document
chaals: yes, i've sent some more comments, and think that it is moving ahead steadily
<dom> Current latest version, dated Nov 25
jo: my comment is that i'm not quite sure whether the target of the document is clearly focused. it seems to be that it could be about a number of things and right now it's about a mixture of those things
chaals: i have a similar concern,
i think it needs to be clearer about who it's for. i think
there are some things being fixed up that will help, but i
think there is work to do.
... i think it's a big chunk of work, but don't think there is
need for concern about the timeline, we raise issues and move
forward
jo: ok anything else? not sure
where Alan is...
... ok, any other business?
dom: i found a small but annoying
bug in the mobile OK spec: useragent string defined by the spec
is not the one we had decided on a few months ago.
... given that websites are likely to fairly strictly match
against the string, while the error is minor, it is a fairly
serious bug. so we are going to publish a new version tomorrow
with a fix
jo: ok thanks dom, so everyone make sure you are using the right string
[adjourned earlier in Alan's absentia]