See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Jan
Jan's start on comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0000.html
JT: 1- This would be useful and should contain a quick reference checklist (should be a living document)
2- Some aspects of this (good standing, heartbeats) could benefit from some flexibility.
3- Only those things worth enforcing in all instances should be process rules. The rest might inform best practices.
GP: Brings up issue of charter...seemed to take time away from standards authoring
JT: More general point about sparing members of group from the bureaucratic side of things.
3A- Charter administration should fall less on members of group trying to work
3B- Charter should be more of a living document with respect to work being done
JS: Sometimes that's our protection.
Process Implementation: Do the roles & responsibilities of identified people need updating
4- This wouldn't hurt.
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)
Process clarity: Process clarity: Going to Last Call (LC) is misleading for Candidate Recommendation (CR) changes
6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible.
JS: Tricky issue is that Last Call is patent exclusion opportunity.
6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handle.
6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handled.
TB: Perception that many stakeholders dont pay attention till last call...so perception is actually the First Look
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.
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.
GP: ISO has different terms
Process clarity: How should implementation integrate into process
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.
Complexity of Process Document
8- Agree with all. See my comment #3
8- Hearbeat requirements much less important for public groups like AUWG
Speed of document production
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.
Contextual/Social Framework: Desire for stable reference
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.
11- On the other hand, if the area of a recommendation continues to evolve quickly, why should a document ever be "done"?
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
Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...).
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...
scribe: 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?
JS: Like waht
JT: Independece across
... Everyone fairly satisfied with this as a set of commetns from AUWG?
JS: This friday?
JS: No new news...I continue to push towards publishing, waiting for approvals.
JR: Re 3 nothing done yet
JS: Nothing new since last
... 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
... People can run test on their own tools
... THats the plan. It is still publically availalble.
... Key thing is that we have test cases to write...hundreds of them.
... For each we need a basic test, a failure test and then edge cases.
JR: Hopefully some of TIm's past testing suite work can be re-used
TB: I'd like to see what can be reused
JS: TPAC will be in France in
... Last week we wanted to find out if our European partners would be able to attend.
... I will put up a survey for the TPAC F2F
JT: Coleman insistute meeting is
at the same time
... 1-2 of Nov
... Also we are co-hosting something in Colombia lat Oct
JR: Sounds like it won't work
JS: What a number of groups do is meet the following week
JT: We may have a host in
... No call on April 9
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Jan Inferring ScribeNick: Jan Default Present: Jeanne, Jan, Jutta, Greg, CherieE, Tim_Boland, Sueann Present: Jeanne Jan Jutta Greg CherieE Tim_Boland Sueann Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0001.html Got date from IRC log name: 02 Apr 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/02-au-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]