15:21:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:21:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/01-wai-wcag-irc
15:21:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:21:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:21:47 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:21:47 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:21:48 <trackbot> Date: 01 March 2016
15:22:02 <Joshue> zakim, agenda?
15:22:02 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:22:03 <Zakim> 8. Extension document issues (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Misc20160223/results, list discussion on 2.2) [from AWK]
15:22:16 <Joshue> zakim, clear agenda
15:22:16 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:31:57 <Joshue> agenda+ Extensions discussion
15:33:44 <Joshue> agenda+ I ssues work/update https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/1stMarch2016/
15:43:00 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
15:48:07 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:48:16 <Wayne> present+ wayne
15:49:38 <laura> Hi Wayne, I liked yours too :-)
15:55:10 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
15:55:16 <korn> korn has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:08 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:57:13 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:57:13 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:57:14 <Zakim> 1. Extensions discussion [from Joshue]
15:57:14 <Zakim> 2. I ssues work/update https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/1stMarch2016/ [from Joshue]
16:00:38 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:01 <yatil> present+ EricE
16:01:19 <alastairc> present+ AlastairC
16:01:28 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:42 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:57 <_665> _665 has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:13 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:02:34 <JF> Present+ JF
16:02:55 <AWK> IRC information: https://www.w3.org/Project/IRC/
16:02:56 <JF> agenda?
16:03:02 <_665> present+ Kim Dirks
16:03:03 <laura> present+ Laura
16:03:06 <AWK> +AWK
16:03:15 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
16:03:42 <Joshue> +Joshue
16:03:57 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
16:04:04 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:08 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:04:29 <Joshue> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
16:04:59 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:00 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
16:05:50 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:21 <Wayne> scribe: Wayne
16:06:25 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:55 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
16:07:25 <Wayne> zakim, next item
16:07:26 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Extensions discussion" taken up [from Joshue]
16:08:00 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:09:17 <JF> Q+ to say that what we do with new work is a critical part of defining the requirements
16:09:20 <Wayne> Josh: The extension has been excellent. We don't have to work out all of the details now. We don't need to get too hunb up in all the details. The extensions are exploritory.
16:09:23 <Joshue> ack JF
16:09:23 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to say that what we do with new work is a critical part of defining the requirements
16:10:09 <Wayne> JF: We are working on a requirements doc. The discussion of what we are going to do with them is critical.
16:11:00 <Ryladog> q+
16:11:08 <Joshue> ack rylado
16:11:16 <Wayne> Josh: We are playing a long game and we need to avoid getting lost in the weeds. Our current grasp does not stack up.
16:11:47 <Wayne> Katie: I usderstand Johns concern, but we need more to address them.
16:12:22 <Judy> Judy has joined #wai-wcag
16:13:01 <Joshue> q?
16:13:02 <Wayne> JF: I don't see how the tasks are mutually exclusive.  Some TFs are almost ready. It is blocking work.
16:13:41 <Ryladog> q+ to not worry about what those developing SC will be numbered for now from each task force
16:13:44 <Wayne> Josh: Thought experiment. Suppose if some of this work did not result in extensions. They may be a new version of WCAG.
16:14:00 <Joshue> ack ryla
16:14:00 <Zakim> Ryladog, you wanted to not worry about what those developing SC will be numbered for now from each task force
16:14:12 <Wayne> JF: If iI usderstand I do. I do not agree.
16:14:28 <AWK> Q+ to say that the Task forces are expecting to provide a set of possible SC, not a fully-formed extension at this time.  Not sure what work is being blocked.
16:14:32 <Kathy> q+
16:14:52 <SarahHorton> q+
16:15:00 <Wayne> Katie: What there developeing scucess criteria are. We need to see all the requirements befor we start applying numbers etc.
16:15:07 <JF> Q+
16:15:39 <Joshue> q?
16:15:44 <Joshue> ack awk
16:15:44 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the Task forces are expecting to provide a set of possible SC, not a fully-formed extension at this time.  Not sure what work is being blocked.
16:16:27 <MichaelC> q+ to say ok to have requirements open for a while; mark it as an open issue; attempt to address the issues as seems best in the extensions; see how that experimentation informs resolving the issue
16:18:13 <Joshue> ack kathy
16:18:22 <Wayne> AWK: I don't think work is being blocked. Right now the TFs is not the numbers. In some cases numbers are added. They do not make a commitment. I am not sure the work is being blocked. What we need to do with all the content. I'm not sure we can wait for all TFs to complete.
16:18:22 <Kathy> q-
16:18:37 <JF> example of Mobile: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_revision_of_2.5.3
16:19:40 <JF> touch stand-alone kiosk
16:20:40 <Wayne> Kathy: In order to move the mobile task force forward. The numbering is aproximate. Things are not just mobile specific. The numbering is not just the way to wrap our heads around hand what will fit. Put them in so that the TFs can work.
16:20:53 <Judy> q+ to ask a question
16:21:55 <Joshue> ack sarah
16:22:56 <Joshue> q?
16:23:49 <Wayne> SaraH: It seems clear that the TFs are doing good work. The concerns are with what to do with what is coming out. The task forces should focus on the content, but there is a gap that is an "activity" task force that turns it into guidelines and resources for conformance.
16:24:03 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:24:25 <Wayne> SaraH: We ned an additional activity TF to integrate it.
16:24:50 <Wayne> Kathy: You cannot say that a TF cant do the integration.
16:25:15 <Wayne> SaraH: There should be an additional activity that specifically does integration.
16:25:51 <JF> Q?
16:25:52 <Joshue> q?
16:26:02 <Joshue> ?me I can here you..
16:26:12 <Joshue> ?me I'll dial in
16:26:33 <yatil> s|?me|/me|g
16:26:45 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
16:26:47 <AWK> ack jf
16:27:04 <yatil> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:27:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html yatil
16:27:40 <Joshue> q+
16:28:24 <MichaelC> q+ to say we do want a schedule, but we do need some draft extensions to play with
16:28:38 <AWK> +1 to JF's point that the WCAG main group is the integration group
16:28:41 <Wayne> JF: Kathy says the TFs need direction and guideance. Sara proposed an integration TF. We need answers now.  When will wee do this? I don't think it is too early to do this.  I propose the WCAG WG is the integration.
16:28:47 <MichaelC> ack me
16:28:47 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say ok to have requirements open for a while; mark it as an open issue; attempt to address the issues as seems best in the extensions; see how that
16:28:50 <Zakim> ... experimentation informs resolving the issue and to say we do want a schedule, but we do need some draft extensions to play with
16:30:16 <JF> +1 to a Schedule, which should be in the Requirements document
16:30:20 <JF> Q+
16:30:27 <AWK> ack judy
16:30:27 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask a question
16:30:30 <Wayne> MichaelC: It is acceptable. We don't have enough information to finalize. We can say to the TFs that we don't know all requirements. We can leve it open. Johns concern about timing is important. We need to set deadlines. We cnanot do anything undil wie have some drafts.
16:30:31 <Joshue> ack michae
16:30:55 <AWK> q+ to say that a schedule is not in the requirements document.  These are different.
16:31:06 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:31:28 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:34:32 <Wayne> Judy: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion: I've heard we need all of the requirements clear. Other says maybe just a set of this. We need not only a caldnear deadline but a content threashold. Mobile is ahead. Is there a qualitative threshold. I've heard that TF may be held up without requiements. This happened with WCAG 2. If TFs are held back, we could do some and make decisions. Set a...
16:34:33 <Wayne> ...clear qualitative threshold.
16:34:35 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:34:50 <Joshue> ack me
16:36:05 <Joshue> ack jf
16:36:10 <Wayne> Josh: I hear what John is saying. I think we can wait. The details of thes requirements is not necessary. We need to through rocks at these requirements.  We do not need to define what it needs to be now.
16:36:23 <Judy> s/content threashold/qualitative threshold/
16:37:05 <Wayne> JF: Model of integration. Is it defined. It should be part of the requirements document. Do we have a definition of extension. We cannot change WCAG 2. We want to extend.
16:37:05 <Joshue> q?
16:37:08 <Wayne> Q+
16:37:09 <Judy> q+
16:37:09 <Kathy> q+
16:37:11 <Joshue> ack awk
16:37:12 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that a schedule is not in the requirements document.  These are different.
16:37:59 <Wayne> AWK: We do need to define the requirements but the schedule is separate.
16:38:13 <Wayne> JF: A question is when will we address that.
16:38:18 <JF> +1 to figuring that out - sooner rather than later
16:38:46 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:39:02 <alastairc> What is difficult about developing SCs in the task forces independently, before conformance is defined?
16:39:07 <Wayne> AWK: We may have to accept a degree of flux. My hope is so we have guidence. If we allow flexibility we can hone it.
16:39:14 <MichaelC> q+ to say we shouldn´t answer things slower than we can help, but also can´t answer them well faster than we should
16:39:43 <Joshue> ack wayne
16:40:15 <MichaelC> q+ to say presence of open issues means we´re getting work done, and have work to do
16:40:25 <Joshue> WD:It seems to me we are developing criteria and extensions of criteria that are non-conflicting.
16:40:36 <Joshue> WD: Thats our operating principle.
16:40:53 <Joshue> WD: We have an idea of what SCs they will fit with, some ideas are new.
16:41:03 <Joshue> WD: I don't feel constraint.
16:41:15 <Joshue> ack judy
16:41:27 <Judy> s/This happened with WCAG 2.0/When WCAG 2.0 was under development, sometimes they couldn't decide everything at once, so sometimes they mocked up different approaches to explore and gain experience from those./
16:42:53 <JF> Q+ to push for a clear definition of extension in this WG
16:42:55 <Joshue> ack kathy
16:42:59 <Wayne> Judy: I think that: If any groups feel constrained then we need to address that. Calendar is less important thatn qualitative content limit. This may allow us to define what to do.
16:43:36 <MichaelC> q+ to say let´s not over-require things; some framing of our activity can be done in non-requirements mode
16:44:02 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
16:44:27 <JF> Thank you Kathy!
16:44:28 <Joshue> q?
16:45:14 <Judy> s/Calendar is less important than qualitative content limit./Can the extension requirements doc also address qualitative threshold as well as calendar schedule?/
16:45:16 <MichaelC> q+ to +1 to structured coordination between TFs
16:45:41 <Joshue> +1 to high level view of nexus between TF work
16:46:52 <Wayne> Kathy: Johns integration. We are focused. Low vision users with LV. Cognitative looks at their group. There are things they are looking at. There may be cross over. There is a issue of overlap. There is not a clear if were creating one extension or multiple extensions. We are focus on specific things. We do need coordniations. We are looking at multiple things, technology and users. There is...
16:46:53 <Wayne> ...going to be having overlap. We all need to be thinking about . We do need to think about those things are fitting together. It doesn't stop TFs from working, but we do need to coordinate similarities.
16:47:25 <Wayne> Josh: As people are in there silos they may not be aware of other TFs are doing.
16:47:50 <Joshue> ack mike
16:47:55 <Wayne> ...Need to have coordination
16:49:34 <Wayne> MichaelC: I heard hypothetically that a lack of a clear path is constrianing TF work. We don't want to limit the group creativity. Once they have come up with somethings we can impose limits.
16:49:50 <MichaelC> s/MichaelC/Mike_Elledge/
16:50:18 <Joshue> ack mich
16:50:18 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we shouldn´t answer things slower than we can help, but also can´t answer them well faster than we should and to say presence of open issues means
16:50:18 <MichaelC> ack me
16:50:21 <Zakim> ... we´re getting work done, and have work to do and to say let´s not over-require things; some framing of our activity can be done in non-requirements mode and to +1 to
16:50:21 <Zakim> ... structured coordination between TFs
16:50:22 <Wayne> Josh: We can look at them being independent, but we don't want to be too open ended.
16:51:40 <Wayne> MichaelC: We shouldn't drag our feet, but we need to be schedule concious. The presence of open issues means we are making progrss. Requirements are important, but they are not the only way to include a framework.
16:51:40 <Joshue> ack jf
16:51:40 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to push for a clear definition of extension in this WG
16:52:13 <Joshue> q+
16:52:30 <Joshue> ack me
16:52:43 <Judy> Judy has joined #wai-wcag
16:52:44 <Wayne> JF: Sooner rather than later, are we have multiple extensions, are are we going to have one that sends us forward. If we don't have a requirement how do we move forward.
16:52:45 <yatil> q+ Judy
16:53:06 <Judy> q+ to ask a follow-up question
16:53:30 <JF> +1 on avoiding ghettoization
16:53:55 <MichaelC> q+ to say +1 to defining extension in requirements, but unsure if it needs to go as far as specifying one or the other of topic-specific vs aggregate; that might be more for non-requirements framing
16:54:25 <Ryladog> +1 to Josh's plan
16:54:48 <Joshue> ack judy
16:54:48 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask a follow-up question
16:54:54 <Wayne> Josh: If you had ask me months ago. I would say there will be a mobile, cognitive, ... Now I do not see that that would work.  I urge that we don't stop. Publish what they have god. Look at potential interoperability. A requirement at this time is not a good idea.
16:55:47 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:55:50 <MichaelC> q-
16:55:56 <David> +David
16:56:10 <Wayne> Judy: This is an important discussion. One approach is to figure out what is doable at eash stage. Come up with something that will work. The group might want to think about is how do we max out the questions now.
16:56:12 <David> Present+ David
16:56:30 <Joshue> q?
16:57:11 <Wayne> ...what detailed questions can be askde. What issues that you see may be useful. What do I think?
16:57:49 <SarahHorton> q+
16:57:53 <Joshue> q+ I'm saying a conformance model based on user requirements isn't the way to go not that a user needs based extension is incorrect
16:58:05 <David> q+
16:58:08 <David> http://davidmacd.com/blog/WCAG-extension-proposed-integration-into-WCAG.html
16:58:24 <Wayne> JF: An extension model that is based on user models... WCAG for Cognitive ... WCAG for mobile... that would be the worst model. What do mean by extension.
16:59:02 <Joshue> q+ to say a conformance model based on user requirements isn't the way to go not that a user needs based extension is incorrect
16:59:34 <Ryladog_> q+ to talk about what is not on the table
17:00:08 <Wayne> ... There seems to be WCAG 2 + this and that. Before you build a building we need a plan. This is not slowing down TF. All we need is a requierment. What we do with these extensions.
17:00:53 <Joshue> ack sarah
17:00:57 <Joshue> q-
17:01:04 <Wayne> ... Whther it is WCAG 2.0 or some other... until we do this we are flailing about.
17:01:39 <JF> +1 to Sarah - the time is now
17:02:02 <Wayne> SaraH: This is a process that is ready for architecture. We need to design different mock ups. Now is the time to do it.
17:02:02 <Joshue> ack dav
17:02:03 <MichaelC> +1 to designing alternate approaches for comparision
17:02:27 <Makoto> +1 to JF
17:03:05 <Joshue> q?
17:03:07 <Wayne> David: When we first started this process maybe we could look at David's model.
17:03:14 <Joshue> ack ryla
17:03:14 <Zakim> Ryladog_, you wanted to talk about what is not on the table
17:03:22 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
17:04:12 <Joshue> q?
17:04:28 <Judy> q+ to clarify something
17:04:47 <Joshue> ack judy
17:04:47 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to clarify something
17:04:51 <Wayne> Katie: What we need to about is what we are talking about.  We thought WCAG _+ X+Y... Probably having a single extension is what we need. I think the 2.1 ... is what we want to have. if we can lets have it.
17:05:54 <Wayne> Judy: It has never the case the case that we couldn't not look at different extensions models.
17:06:04 <jon_avila> I thought our old charter said we couldn't create new normative work?  Guess that was a rumor?
17:06:38 <Joshue> q+
17:06:40 <MichaelC> q+ to say +1 to discussion now; but need data to be productive
17:06:42 <Joshue> ack me
17:06:43 <David> q+
17:06:47 <Wayne> JF: Now is the time to start the discussion. Let's not punt this down the road. We don't have an end state.
17:06:50 <laura> q+
17:06:53 <Joshue> ack michael
17:06:53 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say +1 to discussion now; but need data to be productive
17:07:11 <Wayne> Josh: If I hac money and was a betting man I like a 2.1.
17:07:25 <Judy> s/at different extension models/at updated versions/
17:07:38 <Joshue> ack david
17:07:54 <JF> Q+ to ask if we can we agree to set a milestone for concluding that discussion?
17:08:01 <Joshue> ack lauta
17:08:04 <Wayne> MichaelC: We need dada. We don't want to punt down the road but I don't want to go in circles and go nowheres.
17:08:05 <Joshue> ack laura
17:08:35 <Wayne> Laura: Arent we bound by our charters to have extensions.
17:08:44 <Judy> q+ to further clarify
17:09:33 <Joshue> ack JF
17:09:33 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if we can we agree to set a milestone for concluding that discussion?
17:09:42 <Wayne> MichaelC: Could not publish a WCAG 2.1 without rechartering.
17:10:00 <MichaelC> but could experiment with it, under requirements gathering
17:10:55 <MichaelC> q+ to say +1 to timeline; suggest chairs propose a 1st draft
17:11:04 <Wayne> JF: I appriciate we have discussed. Can we set a milestone to have that architecture.  Can we agree to have mid threshold. Could we put a frame around this and an end date.
17:11:38 <Joshue> ack judy
17:11:38 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to further clarify
17:11:39 <MichaelC> q+ to say timeline doesn´t mean we can´t change course; it´s meant to keep us on course
17:11:40 <Wayne> Josh: No. it is the worng questions. I have my reservations.
17:12:09 <laura> Charter: https://www.w3.org/2015/09/wcag-charter
17:12:43 <MichaelC> q+ to say WCAG charter says ¨extensions¨; specifics are just examples; milestones were best guess at time of charter with explicit reference to where updates can be found
17:13:21 <Wayne> Judy: There has been a push about having the req track being in and out of scope. Is there a constraint in the ffunding. We have never had a constraing in the limits. The expectation that we would explore new stuff.
17:14:18 <kirkwood_> kirkwood_ has joined #wai-wcag
17:14:18 <Wayne> ... You need a consencus on the need.  Once again we need a qualitative threshold.
17:14:28 <David> q+
17:14:33 <MichaelC> ack me
17:14:33 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say +1 to timeline; suggest chairs propose a 1st draft and to say timeline doesn´t mean we can´t change course; it´s meant to keep us on course and to
17:14:33 <Joshue> ack mi
17:14:36 <Zakim> ... say WCAG charter says ¨extensions¨; specifics are just examples; milestones were best guess at time of charter with explicit reference to where updates can be found
17:15:27 <Judy> s/Is there a constraint in the ffunding./There is no constraint in the funding, and has not been./
17:16:19 <Joshue> q?
17:16:23 <JF> +1 to working towards identified dates, while remaining flexible in reaching consensus
17:16:40 <Wayne> MichaelC: On the charter it enables to publish extensions. It does not define the decision. All the models would be supported. I do support timelines. I think we can do it. We will need flexibility. Just because we don't know where we are going doesnt mean we cannot make one.
17:17:03 <Wayne> JF: +1 to timeline. We need to set dates.
17:17:32 <Joshue> ack david
17:17:32 <Wayne> ... we need to have some closure.
17:17:40 <Judy> s/We have never had a constraing in the limits. The expectation that we would explore new stuff./There have been some constraints about Rec track work in charters, but also an expectation that we would explore new stuff./
17:18:30 <Wayne> zakim, next item
17:18:31 <Zakim> agendum 2. "I ssues work/update https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/1stMarch2016/" taken up [from Joshue]
17:18:43 <David> hmmm I guess something is wrong with my mike...
17:19:04 <Joshue> TOPIC: Clarification over link/button states
17:19:50 <Joshue> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/157
17:24:06 <Wayne>  add a new note to clarify if contrast success criterion for 1.4.3 applies to all states for interactive elements such as links, buttons and inputs.?
17:24:09 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
17:25:46 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
17:26:53 <David> how about... "for a state that indicates a change of state which is intended to be an instantaneous indication of a change of state"
17:26:57 <Joshue> RESOLUTION: James N and Alistair to work on description of transcient meta states
17:27:45 <Wayne> Item 1: Needs to postpone
17:28:57 <Wayne> s/Item 1/Item 2/
17:29:10 <Judy> Judy has left #wai-wcag
17:29:38 <jon_avila> Are we talking about h64?
17:30:09 <jon_avila> q?
17:30:10 <jon_avila> q+
17:30:17 <Joshue> q?
17:30:18 <Wayne> AWK: Unless anyone objects we remove it.
17:30:32 <Joshue> ack jon
17:30:33 <Wayne> James: It appears to be advisory.
17:30:47 <jon_avila> q-
17:31:22 <Mike_Elledge> bye all!
17:31:27 <JF> JF has left #wai-wcag
17:31:31 <Wayne> James: Note that is an advisiory technique.
17:31:33 <laura> Bye!
17:31:36 <SarahHorton> Thanks!
17:32:34 <Wayne> rssagent, make minutes
17:32:59 <Wayne> trackbot, end meeting
17:32:59 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:32:59 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Michael_Cooper, Alastair_Campbell, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kim_Dirks, Laura_Carlson, Lisa_Seeman,
17:33:02 <Zakim> ... Mike_Elledge, Moe_Kraft, Rakesh_Paladugula, Sarah_Horton, Wayne_Dick, MoeKraft, David, AWK, marcjohlic, JamesNurthen, JF, Joshue108, jon_avila, AlastairC, EricE, Elledge,
17:33:02 <Zakim> ... Sarah_Swierenga, Srini, Dirks, Makoto, Joshue, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Kathy
17:33:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:33:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:33:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:33:08 <RRSAgent> I see no action items