See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 November 2012
<scribe> scribe: JF
Chaals:
chaals: reviewing items
<MichaelC> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
<scribe> ACTION: 148 to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
<chaals> ACTION-148?
<trackbot> ACTION-148 -- John Foliot to do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/148
JF: still open
... will shoot for next week, should be fine
<chaals> ACTION-148: due in 1 week
<trackbot> ACTION-148 Do a summary of the 2 competing proposals for Issue 194 notes added
<chaals> ACTION-147?
<trackbot> ACTION-147 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to organise meeting between co-chairs and HTML editors to see if we can peacefully resolve the alt text guidance issue -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/147
ACTION-147
<chaals> ACTION-146?
<trackbot> ACTION-146 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to publish updated draft and call for consensus running until Monday 26th -- due 2012-11-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/146
<chaals> ACTION-144?
<trackbot> ACTION-144 -- Charles McCathie Nevile to check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/144
Chaals: 147, will return to that
later in meeting, 146, working forward, 145 on Janina -
ignoring this week due to Janina not being here
... 144 is accesskeys, still open and on Chaals
<chaals> ACTION-144: . due in 1 week
<trackbot> ACTION-144 Check whether we should be looking into accesskeys as an HTML issue notes added
Chaals: 143: on Steve F
<chaals> ACTION-143?
<trackbot> ACTION-143 -- Steve Faulkner to chase ISSUE-194 by getting to FPWD proposals drafted -- due 2012-11-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/143
Steve: had a discussion a few weeks back, attempting to get 1 or more extensions specs written
chaals: steves action item is superceded by JF's Action 149
<scribe> ACTION: chaals to follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Follow up old action items and see which remain relevent [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2012-12-06].
chaals: looking to have F2F
meetings in April - we have been asked if we wish to meet at
same time
... is there interest in this at this group?
JF: yes
Cyns: thinks a great idea, and PF was positive too
PLH: at this time there are 3 groups meeting, web apps, WAI-PF and HTML WG
question is, when would you like to meet? as there will be some overlap
<mhakkinen> ETS would be interested, depending on date (due to other conferences)
Cyns: if the HTML WG uses the unconference mode, that worked well
chaals:
strong preference not to overlap with web apps
Judy: noticed at TPAC that when a certain item was scheduled for a time, missed that slot, and then appeared at a different time with short notice - caused some frustration
due to gathering up view points, etc.
unconference mode has worked well, but if there are specific items, having it scheduled is productive
PLH: exact locationg TBC, but F2F will be in the Bay Area (Silicon Valley)
chaals: regarding unconference mode
we should perhpas ask the HTML WG to run an actual scheduling session at the beginning to ensure we get our own items on the agenda
but that we also look to run our own track
chaals: ensure that we communicate with Chairs to be sure we have good communication
PLH: does this mean this TF needs a seperate room>
chaals: not sure - exploring that possibility
Cyns: that may not be needed, at last TPAC we did not use/require
PLH: last F2F in Silicon Valley only used 1 room, and that seemed to work well
chaals: it seemed to work ok, however some of the HTML attendees where unhappy about that
depends on the topics
suspect that some of our items are of little interest to the larger group, and that some of the HTML WG topics aren't our concerns
JUdy: given that this is a few months out, and given that we may have new items between now and then, plus the further de-coupling of things , such as the mandate that the TF now has to advance their own extensions as specs,, likely that having a seperate room for this TF have it's own room, at least part of the time
PLH: will ask the host about this, but it should be do-able - very little impact
cyns, perhaps 1 day seperate, one day with larger group
JF: +1 to cyns
ACTION on chairs to coordinate with HTML Chairs to ensure joint scheduling is correct at the April F2F
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>.
ACTION on Chaals to have TF chairs coor4dinate with HTML Chairs on scheduing for F2F in April
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find on. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/users>.
\/me oh never mind\
\/me oh never mind\
chaals: we had a CFC set to close
before this meeting - we had one set of statements from James
Craig saying not fan of Longdesc, plus one objection from Mat
Turvey to moving forward
... responded directly to Matt, so perhaps not best to comment,
but chaals has a personal position and so may have conflict of
interest
Judy: ... since I've not followed all of the list discussion, is there a response from Matt to Chaals' response to his initial objections?
<paulc> Link to the CFC, please?
<paulc> Aside, treat me like Rip van Winkle - away for 4 weeks.
stevef: not a huge fan of longedesc, but agree that this should continue to move forward
<chaals> http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+ri+VnNPq_DRiQjzm0+v5fDyGnNo5VqPVQWoAr8ukn-cchsBQ@mail.gmail.com -> Call for Consensus to request FPWD
as janina pointed out, is part of TF job to provide support and get this out to the WG
this is not a
<Judy> links to objection?
CFC is not whether you agree with longdesc, but rather if we should move forward on the tech spec
<chaals> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAFp5+ApBdj-htMGOZQpkChdFJ2Fe3vVrgntnksQ7+PWdaGUVOQ@mail.gmail.com -> objection to publishing from Matt Turvey
LjW: just to +1 as the voice of a user, until we have something better lets continue working with this
chaals: any ohter comment5s/thoughts?
<David> +1
PaulC: looking for the actual URL
chaals: pasted into IRC
channel
... what we have is a handful of comments, along with a request
to modify a specific example
<richardschwerdtfeger> copy that
chaals: so question is, is Matt's objection sufficient to stop progress, or should we continue to move forward noting Matt's objection
SteveF: my understanding is that the TF asks the HTML WG to move this forward there, thus at this time we are looking to ask the WG to continue to work on this there
PaulC: generally agree with earlier comments re: technical details don't need to be finished to move forward
however in this case, sending this along to the Working Group will simply serve to resurface the same objections
so perhaps addressing each each point, and file bugs against each technical objection would be the way forward
chaals: replied to each objection as an individual
process -wise, the TF needs the WG "consent" to move forward, as the TF does not have mandate to final publication
Judy: many of the comments were never formally addressed by the TF, and only ever discussed on the list
perhaps this TF should split them out and formally address them
<paulc> Note that there is a patent policy implication on FPWD: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with
<paulc> This is at least one reason the associated WGs need to approve the publication.
JUdy: from my perspective, the better the record we have on how the TF responds to the issues, the stronger the "story" moving forward
PaulC: people cannot lose fact re: Patent Policy
the TF does not have the same responsabilities in that regard
so there are Process requirements for this to go through the WG
Chaals: agree that process is that HTML WG to be the formal group that publishes this
question over whether the WG has delegated the responsibility for publishing, and it appears not
given that this TF will first discuss this, and then have the same debate repeated at the larger WG seems to be a duplication of effort - is there a way to minimize that
<Stevef> +1 to pauls suggestion
PaulC: believes that original response answered the question: this TF should address all of the technical objections, and leave process objections to the WG
Judy: strongly suggest that this TF respond to technical items formally
this TF can respond to his objections, and get them on the record
cyns: agree with Judy - important that we have a formal record and deal with each item methodically and specirfically
also believe we should reach consensus within this group, and that the TF speak with one voice, even if we have divergent views internally
we own this, so we need to do a good job with it
chaals: straw pol on 2 questions: 1) should we identify all the process questions, and pass those directly to the HTML WG untouched.
<chaals> Proposal: We identify process issues in Matt's objection, and ask the HTML WG to deal with those questions
<LjW> +1
Cyns: we need to review each question and decide if we believe them to be process or technical
<Stevef> +1
+1
<IanPouncey> +1
<paulc> Paul abstains
<David> +1
<chaals> cyns: +1
(poll on passing process questions to WG)
chaals: any against?
<paulc> I need to go to the WG meeting.
<chaals> Proposal: We expect to resolve technical objections before requesting FPWD
<Stevef> -1
Chaals: 2) identify technical issues and raise bugs on them
<Stevef> to resolving every bug
Judy: but you need to respond on them as well?
<Stevef> " As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents."
chaals: suggest that we propose to identify all technical comments
judy: we should also not just
identify, and not necessarily resolve, but to respond to all of
them
... we should do more than just what the process requires -
that we should be on record with substantive responses at the
TF
cyns: agree that we should also respond - some responses may be - yes, file a bug, or we disagree, or other
what is important is that we have a formal record, and responses to all issues
chaals: wrapping up
have started to file bugs where I have found an issue
the big question is, how much consensus do we need to move this forward to the WG
seems that the consensus is that until we identify all the technical issues we are not ready
so minimum bar is to identify which issues are technical versus process, and formally record them as such
we should however actually resolve the issues, not just identify them
MichaelC; there is a difference between resolving issues and addressing comments
judy: identification is one level, responding all is a second level, resolving is a thrid level
SteveF: what is meant by "respond"?
Judy: chaals has responded as an individual - does this TF accept those responsesas the voice of the TF?
<Judy> s/does this TF accept those respopnses as the voice of the TF?/the TF can consider those as draft responses, or amend or expand those/
<chaals> Provisional Resolution: We expect to agree on a task for response to each technical issue before requesting FPWD
deferred to next meeting
<chaals> i/paul abstains/Provisional resolution: We will identify any process issues and request the HTML-WG to deal with them.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/(etc.)/, such as the mandate that the TF now has to advance their own extensions as specs,/ Succeeded: s/the list discussion/all of the list discussion/ Succeeded: s/respond to all/not just identify, and not necessarily resolve, but to respond to all/ Succeeded: s/respopnses /responses/ FAILED: s/does this TF accept those respopnses as the voice of the TF?/the TF can consider those as draft responses, or amend or expand those/ FAILED: i/paul abstains/Provisional resolution: We will identify any process issues and request the HTML-WG to deal with them. Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Default Present: John_Foliot, Judy, chaals, leonie, Michael_Cooper, IanPouncey, [IPcaller], stevef, Cynthia_Shelly, David_MacDonald, Plh Present: J_brewer MichaelC JFoliot CynthiaShelley RichS Leonie David_McDonald PaulC Ted_(Hober) SteveF Regrets: Janina Found Date: 29 Nov 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-html-a11y-minutes.html People with action items: 148 chaals WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]