18:50:51 RRSAgent has joined #au 18:50:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/02-au-irc 18:50:57 Zakim, this will be AUWG 18:50:57 ok, Jan; I see WAI_AUWG()3:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 18:51:01 Meeting: WAI AU 18:51:12 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0001.html 18:51:27 Chair: Jutta Treviranus 18:56:16 jeanne has joined #au 19:00:04 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has now started 19:00:11 +Jeanne 19:02:09 +??P1 19:02:22 zakim, ??P1 is really Jan 19:02:22 +Jan; got it 19:03:12 +??P2 19:04:13 zakim, ??P2 is really Jutta 19:04:13 +Jutta; got it 19:11:36 zakim, who's here? 19:11:36 On the phone I see Jeanne, Jan, Jutta 19:11:38 On IRC I see jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, Jan, trackbot 19:12:43 +Greg 19:13:56 +[Microsoft] 19:15:32 zakim,[Microsoft] is really CherieE 19:15:32 +CherieE; got it 19:15:39 Greg has joined #au 19:15:47 scribe: Jan 19:15:59 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0001.html 19:16:27 Topic: 1. Process review comments 19:16:56 Jan's start on comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0000.html 19:17:14 Tim has joined #au 19:17:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Mar/att-0007/AB_List_of_Concerns-20120306.htm 19:17:52 +Tim_Boland 19:20:26 JT: 1- This would be useful and should contain a quick reference checklist (should be a living document) 19:22:34 2- Some aspects of this (good standing, heartbeats) could benefit from some flexibility. 19:22:36 3- Only those things worth enforcing in all instances should be process rules. The rest might inform best practices. 19:24:05 GP: Brings up issue of charter...seemed to take time away from standards authoring 19:24:48 JT: More general point about sparing members of group from the bureaucratic side of things. 19:25:33 +Sueann 19:25:49 3A- Charter administration should fall less on members of group trying to work 19:26:12 3B- Charter should be more of a living document with respect to work being done 19:26:38 Sueann has joined #au 19:26:43 JS: Sometimes that's our protection. 19:27:13 Process Implementation: Do the roles & responsibilities of identified people need updating 19:27:15 4- This wouldn't hurt. 19:27:16 5- But the most important issue is that Groups and Editors should never contravene the consensus of the group (especially when votes have actually been taken) 19:29:55 Process clarity: Process clarity: Going to Last Call (LC) is misleading for Candidate Recommendation (CR) changes 19:29:57 6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible. 19:30:23 JS: Tricky issue is that Last Call is patent exclusion opportunity. 19:31:02 6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handle. 19:31:06 6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handled. 19:32:02 TB: Perception that many stakeholders dont pay attention till last call...so perception is actually the First Look 19:33:20 6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handled. It is a cyclical process, so better terms probably exist. 19:33:34 6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long as patent exclusion issues are handled. It is a cyclical process, so better terms probably exist. 19:34:17 GP: ISO has different terms 19:36:22 Process clarity: How should implementation integrate into process 19:36:23 7- Agree that waiting till CR is too late. Instead, there should be talk about implementation throughout with clear disclaimers that prior to CR, things can change so early implementers need to understand that. 19:36:43 Complexity of Process Document 19:36:45 8- Agree with all. See my comment #3 19:39:40 8- Hearbeat requirements much less important for public groups like AUWG 19:40:48 Speed of document production 19:40:50 9- These delays can be frustrating but not sure how to get around them. One possibility that could also help implementers could be the ability to lock certain parts of the document that the group feels is done. And to ensure this, the pub rules checker might be able to detect if there have been changes to locked areas. 19:43:00 Contextual/Social Framework: Desire for stable reference 19:43:01 10- Stable references are very important. It is very useful for an email in the list to be able to point to a stable section of a stable document. 19:43:03 11- On the other hand, if the area of a recommendation continues to evolve quickly, why should a document ever be "done"? 19:44:34 10- Stable references are very important. It is very useful for an email in the list to be able to point to a stable section of a stable document. Also required for reference from legislation and policy 19:46:32 Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...). 19:46:34 12- It is tricky to balance the need of WGs to move forward on specs with accessibility (I18N, security?) review, especially when it is well known that accessibility is easier when built in from the beginning. First public draft seems too late for the first review. Perhaps a review should occur on the requirements or similar document at the outset? And perhaps WGs could receive a checklist... 19:46:36 ...of type of things that, when added to spec, will trigger accessibility issues so they will be less surprised when things are flagged later and perhaps be more likely to proactively seek accessibility input? 19:48:00 JS: Like waht 19:48:11 JT: Independece across modalities 19:48:15 JT: etc 19:49:27 JT: Everyone fairly satisfied with this as a set of commetns from AUWG? 19:49:31 GP: Great 19:49:34 JS: Yes 19:49:57 CE: Deadline? 19:50:01 JS: This friday? 19:50:09 Topic: 2. Publication update (Jeanne) 19:50:30 JS: No new news...I continue to push towards publishing, waiting for approvals. 19:50:51 Topic: 3. Need to update conformance report (Jan) 19:51:18 Topic: 4. Testing update (Jeanne) 19:51:28 JR: Re 3 nothing done yet 19:51:34 JS: Nothing new since last week. 19:52:21 JS: We have a new tool in W3C that is continuing to evolve. Takes our tests and provides a place to store them....people can query etc 19:52:35 JS: People can run test on their own tools 19:52:48 JS: THats the plan. It is still publically availalble. 19:53:33 JS: Key thing is that we have test cases to write...hundreds of them. 19:53:52 JS: For each we need a basic test, a failure test and then edge cases. 19:54:34 JR: Hopefully some of TIm's past testing suite work can be re-used 19:54:52 TB: I'd like to see what can be reused 19:55:01 Topic: 5. F2F at TPAC in Nov (Jeanne) 19:55:10 http://www.w3.org/2012/10/TPAC/ 19:55:22 JS: TPAC will be in France in Nov 19:55:43 JS: Last week we wanted to find out if our European partners would be able to attend. 19:56:19 JS: I will put up a survey for the TPAC F2F 19:56:33 JT: Coleman insistute meeting is at the same time 19:57:04 JT: 1-2 of Nov 19:57:32 JT: Also we are co-hosting something in Colombia lat Oct 19:58:34 JR: Sounds like it won't work 19:58:50 JS: What a number of groups do is meet the following week 19:59:41 Sueann has left #au 20:00:16 JT: We may have a host in Dublin 20:01:11 JT: No call on April 9 20:01:20 -Sueann 20:01:54 -Tim_Boland 20:01:55 -CherieE 20:01:58 -Jutta 20:02:00 -Jan 20:02:00 -Greg 20:02:01 -Jeanne 20:02:01 WAI_AUWG()3:00PM has ended 20:02:03 Attendees were Jeanne, Jan, Jutta, Greg, CherieE, Tim_Boland, Sueann 20:02:11 RRSAgent, make minutes 20:02:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/02-au-minutes.html Jan 20:02:19 RRSAgent, set logs public 20:02:23 Zakim, bye 20:02:24 Zakim has left #au 20:02:29 RRSAgent, bye 20:02:29 I see no action items