14:56:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:56:07 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-ag-irc
14:56:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
14:56:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:56:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:56:12 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:56:12 <trackbot> Date: 25 April 2017
14:56:17 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:56:17 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:56:40 <KimD> KimD has joined #ag
14:56:47 <Joshue108> agenda+ Supplementary documents proposal
14:57:10 <allanj> present+
14:57:20 <Joshue108> agenda+ Suggestion to change SC review schedule to make it easier.
14:57:30 <Joshue108> agenda+ SC managers and comments - overview of process.
14:57:36 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
14:57:44 <Joshue108> agenda+ Three new or updated SC for review ( 2 here from MATF, LVTF)  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_April25_2017/ (1 from COGA - if you haven't answered it already) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/#wbsq10
14:58:27 <Greg> Greg has joined #ag
14:58:48 <KimD> Present+ KimD
14:59:02 <jasonjgw> present+ jasonjgw
14:59:51 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #ag
15:00:06 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:00:19 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:00:19 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:00:20 <Zakim> 1. Supplementary documents proposal [from Joshue108]
15:00:20 <Zakim> 2. Suggestion to change SC review schedule to make it easier. [from Joshue108]
15:00:20 <Zakim> 3. SC managers and comments - overview of process. [from Joshue108]
15:00:20 <Zakim> 4. Three new or updated SC for review ( 2 here from MATF, LVTF)  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_April25_2017/ (1 from COGA - if you haven't answered it already)
15:00:21 <Zakim> ... https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Top3_18Apr2017/#wbsq10 [from Joshue108]
15:00:34 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:34 <Zakim> Present: allanj, KimD, jasonjgw
15:00:37 <AWK> +AWK
15:00:51 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
15:01:17 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:01:29 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #ag
15:01:40 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:01:44 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #ag
15:01:52 <JF> scribe: JF
15:02:01 <JF> agenda?
15:02:08 <MichaelC> present+
15:02:12 <laura> present+ Laura
15:02:15 <JF> present+ JF
15:02:16 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:02:16 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
15:02:20 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:02:24 <AWK> Need Scribe volunteer for next 3 weeks
15:02:27 <Mike_Pluke> present+ Mike Pluke
15:02:29 <MelanieP> present+ Melanie_Philipp
15:02:32 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:02:34 <Bruce_Bailey> Bruce_Bailey has joined #ag
15:02:48 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:03:05 <Bruce_Bailey> present+ Bruce_Bailey
15:03:36 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #ag
15:03:44 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:03:44 <ChrisLoiselle> I'll scribe next week
15:03:46 <JF> JOC: we'll need a scrivbe for the next few weeks
15:03:53 <JF> 3 urgent needs coming up now
15:04:07 <JF> s/scrivbe /scribe
15:04:43 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:04:46 <laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
15:04:51 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:04:53 <Mike_Elledge> present+ Mike_Elledge
15:05:31 <MichaelC> scribe: Mike_Elledge
15:05:51 <alastairc> I can do 9th may
15:05:52 <ChrisLoiselle> I'll scribe the 9th too. so I can get hang of it
15:05:54 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
15:05:55 <alexli> alexli has joined #ag
15:06:05 <steverep> present+steverep
15:06:18 <alastairc> I'm happy to go later :-)
15:06:20 <Mike_Elledge> Mike Pluke will scribe the 16th.
15:06:38 <Mike_Elledge> Chris Loiselle will scribe the 9th.
15:06:41 <ChrisLoiselle> I'll do 2nd and 9th of May.
15:07:34 <Mike_Elledge> zakim: first item
15:07:44 <Mike_Elledge> zakem, next item
15:07:50 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #AG
15:07:56 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, next item
15:07:56 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Supplementary documents proposal" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:08:15 <Wayne> Present+ Wayne
15:08:38 <Mike_Elledge> Chairs discussing what can be done for SCs that don't make 2.1. What other docs could be made to accomodate.
15:08:40 <AWK> Hat tip to JF for raising and promoting the idea.
15:09:29 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Could be supplementary to 2.1. New items for work in the future. Have timeline want to stick with. So need a plan.
15:09:35 <LisaSeeman> q+
15:09:37 <jasonjgw> q+
15:10:33 <Mike_Elledge> AK: Think in general recognize that will meet timeline or include a larger number of SC. Can't do both. Taking longer than expected; hard work. Don't want to lose good ideas from TFs and beyone.
15:11:21 <Mike_Elledge> AK: Need some  way to expose it to others as Best practices or for research to make achievable in future as different specs or authoring tools.
15:11:41 <Joshue108> ack Lisa
15:11:51 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Response to add supplementary group.
15:12:15 <MichaelC> q+
15:12:41 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #AG
15:12:55 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Sees a complete recommendation on how to make comments useable for mobile, LV, Cognitive, etc. So people who will be able to do it, can.
15:13:22 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:13:25 <Joshue108> q?
15:13:26 <Mike_Pluke> q+
15:13:37 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:14:22 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Avoiding scenario in the past where didn't provide that info. Even if not fully testable, will be helpful to policy makers and developers. Would avoid best practices as term. Not part of 2.1, but doesn't mean that it isn't valuable.
15:15:00 <JF> Q+
15:15:02 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Just want buy-in from group that it's a good idea.
15:15:14 <Glenda> present+ Glenda
15:15:18 <LisaSeeman> he way I had put it was that if people want to do whatever they can to include coga (or LV or mobile), they will have clear guidence on how to do that.
15:15:19 <LisaSeeman> That way a policy maker could say follow 2.1 but for critical services you need to add the supplement for coga (and for LV and/or mobile).
15:15:21 <LisaSeeman> For that we need the guidnece to be as clear and testible as we can -  even if it is not normative at this point.
15:15:22 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:15:39 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:16:23 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 10 mins
15:16:23 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
15:17:39 <Mike_Elledge> Jason: Important to reflect on what goes into WCAG SC, much that is important for devs to be mindful of, would improve a11y, but won't apply to all content, or testable. ie., may not satisfy a particular condition. Also don't know how widespread problem is to meet SCs is to make things accessible. Outreach would help to explain that WCAG is only part of what is necessary.
15:17:46 <kirkwood> present+
15:18:14 <Mike_Elledge> Jason: I nparticular don't want ppl to only rely on SCs. Must meet spirit as well.
15:18:30 <Mike_Elledge> Jason: Such as extensible designs.
15:18:48 <alexli> q+
15:18:53 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Question is supplementary info from Task Forces.
15:19:07 <shwetank> shwetank has joined #ag
15:19:31 <Mike_Elledge> Jason: OK with that, but Outreach and Education group has role as well. Wayne, for example, comment that WCAG is the core but not the limit.
15:19:31 <Joshue108> ack michae
15:19:56 <LisaSeeman> q+
15:20:29 <LisaSeeman> 1+ to michael
15:20:37 <Mike_Elledge> MC: My vision is that it is  a supplemental doc to 2.1. don't assume that everything remaining can be dumped into it. If we include stuff that didn't make sense or doesn't have relation to 2.1 SC should be left out for further work.
15:20:41 <Joshue108> +1 to Michael
15:21:09 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Don't make dropping into supplemental automatic.
15:21:14 <MichaelC> ack me
15:21:16 <Wayne> q+
15:21:26 <Joshue108> ack Mike_
15:21:27 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Should complement 2.1. Also chance to show good work.
15:22:21 <MichaelC> q+ to say we can consider using SC type wording, but one advantage of a supplemental doc would be that we´re less constrained by structure, and should take advantage of that
15:22:38 <LisaSeeman> +1 to mike
15:22:38 <Mike_Elledge> MP: Favor. Try to express that they are important but why not included. For example, testability. Has potential for upgrading later.
15:23:16 <Joshue108> ack JF
15:23:18 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Give us the ability to publish, but take pressure off remaining items that still need work to become normative in .dot release or Silver.
15:23:27 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
15:23:27 <MichaelC> q+ to say keep in mind the long term vision, in Silver we may not have ¨SC¨ as we know them today, so hope to have a way to express things we currently don´t have a way
15:23:34 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:23:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-ag-minutes.html jamesn
15:23:44 <MichaelC> q+ to say I think we need to avoid document proliferation
15:24:34 <Mike_Elledge> JF: At CSUN, idea of collection of docs. MC a supplemental document. Was thinking that there'd be a collection of docs. Good research from COGA and Low Vision--don't want to lose it. Seems to be strewn around. Let's put it in a W3C note and publish it so it can be found.
15:25:12 <MichaelC> q+ to say we have lots of other docs on the go but should have just one (more) that we reference as ¨WCAG 2.1 supplemental guidance¨
15:25:21 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Another case where don't know how to apply to SC in scalable, testable way. Degrees of nuance. Phased release. Want reseach to be published as formal research document.
15:25:21 <Joshue108> ack alex
15:25:36 <LisaSeeman> present+
15:25:45 <jamesn> present+
15:26:04 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Introduction of Alex Li from Microsoft
15:26:23 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
15:26:38 <Mike_Elledge> Alexi: Worked on WCAG 2.0, from MS. What is a supplemental doc and how does it qualify.
15:26:48 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Non-normative, note type status
15:27:55 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Not a formal definition of supplemental guidance: Reco track and note track, that can be almost anything. Many specs supplement their normative, best practices, techniques, etc. This would be supplemental resource.
15:28:17 <Mike_Elledge> Alexi: What is the criteria for what would be included.
15:28:24 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Whatever we decide
15:29:09 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Haven't pinned it down yet, but generally should support 2.1 and provide path for normative.
15:29:14 <Joshue108> ack Lisa
15:31:17 <Joshue108> q+
15:31:25 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Thinkgin will free us form decision not to require user testing, big impact on what we can include. Another advantage won't have conflict on messaging; WCAG is fantastic, does everythign. Which it doesn't. Don't want to say that it doesn't, but it doesn't.
15:32:17 <Mike_Elledge> LS: Allows honest messaging for wht it includes, doesn't. So end-users won't be harmed by assumption that 2.1 covers it all. Will make it easier to say "Can you do more?"
15:32:20 <Joshue108> ack wayne
15:32:39 <MichaelC> q+ to say we always say WCAG 2 doesn´t do everything - last para of https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-layers-guidance
15:32:45 <LisaSeeman> +1 to suit
15:32:51 <LisaSeeman> sweet
15:32:56 <LisaSeeman> whatever...
15:33:50 <Mike_Elledge> Wayne: Think John's idea of suite is good. One part that talks about SC that need to be modified to be accepted. Another section would address difficulty in explaining accessibility. Address things like technology independence.
15:34:11 <Mike_Elledge> Wayne: Should be brought out in paper. Agree with idea of doing it. Have good structure.
15:34:34 <Mike_Elledge> Wayne: Chapters, perhaps
15:34:41 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:34:46 <Joshue108> ack mich
15:34:46 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we can consider using SC type wording, but one advantage of a supplemental doc would be that we´re less constrained by structure, and should take
15:34:49 <Zakim> ... advantage of that and to say keep in mind the long term vision, in Silver we may not have ¨SC¨ as we know them today, so hope to have a way to express things we currently
15:34:49 <Zakim> ... don´t have a way and to say I think we need to avoid document proliferation and to say we have lots of other docs on the go but should have just one (more) that we reference
15:34:53 <Zakim> ... as ¨WCAG 2.1 supplemental guidance¨ and to say we always say WCAG 2 doesn´t do everything - last para of https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-layers-guidance
15:36:10 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #ag
15:36:16 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Don't want to assume we follow same constraints as 2.1. Flexibility. For Silver don't know but hope will be more flexibility. A different sent of constraints. Want to avoid doc proliferation. Reference as prominently as other docs, but don't want supplemental doc for each TF.
15:36:18 <Wayne> +1 to not splintering
15:36:32 <Pietro> Present+ Pietro
15:37:07 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Be conservative to proliferation. Also have always said WCAG 2.0 is starting point, not end-all, be-all. Can do more to explain that. But note we have been transparent about it.
15:37:14 <Joshue108> ack Mike
15:37:24 <alexli> + 1 that wcag is not the be all and end all
15:37:31 <Joshue108> ME: I think it is great, for two reasons.
15:37:45 <Joshue108> ME: It provides a path for research etc and to become possible SCs.
15:37:56 <Joshue108> ME: It also opens up our process to those not involved.
15:38:04 <Joshue108> ack me
15:39:26 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Positive feedback on the call. Will discuss some more and get back to the group. Heartfelt that ppl feel positive about it. Can be helpful in providing accessible content. Provide guidance and design technologies that may not fit in conformance model.
15:39:29 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, next item
15:39:29 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Suggestion to change SC review schedule to make it easier." taken up [from Joshue108]
15:40:31 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Chairs taling about changing review schedule. Suggest a bi-weekly release of new SCs. More realistic based on current progress.
15:40:50 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Will it be more manageable, or happy with way it is now.
15:40:52 <LisaSeeman> what is the current scedule
15:41:02 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Weekly.
15:41:14 <AWK> q+
15:41:16 <Mike_Elledge> JF: Bi weekly, or bi-monthly?
15:41:21 <JF> +1 to every two weeks
15:41:23 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:41:26 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Bi-monthly. Every two weeks.
15:41:51 <gowerm> Say every two weeks instead of bi-weekly OR bi-monthly. Both can be confusing.
15:41:57 <jamesn> q+
15:42:14 <Joshue108> Every two weeks..
15:42:45 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Aspirationally will do 3 SCs a week. But didn't get there. If can't review and approve by changing soemthing have to move on. Will have to be more dynamic in how we prioritize. Can't beat on three for 8 weeks in a row.
15:43:02 <Joshue108> ack james
15:43:12 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Relies on SC managers as well. Can't hammer out more at detriment of others.
15:43:38 <alexli> q+
15:43:39 <Mike_Elledge> Alister: Will still have monthly release
15:44:29 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Hopefully WG will address all issues in process of approving. When we come to finalization dreaft will definitely be monthly.
15:44:37 <alastairc> s/Alister/JamesN
15:45:11 <JF> +1 to JamesN
15:45:15 <Mike_Elledge> James: Do not believe that public will pay attention to monthly releases. They'll look every 3-4 months.
15:45:40 <Joshue108> q?
15:45:43 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Don't object to that. Have to be careful not to re-publish. Only things that have been vetted.
15:45:49 <Glenda> +1 to transparency and sticking to the publishing schedule (but I’m flexible)
15:46:01 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Not much point, but not much harm. Doens't "cost" much.
15:46:19 <Mike_Elledge> JamesN: Want to be sure not looking again at what's been published.
15:46:27 <alastairc> It is a matter of highlighting changes, if we point people to specific things, then it is useful
15:46:51 <AWK> q+
15:47:14 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Want to focus on bi-monthly (every other week: EOW) schedule. Priority is to manage queue for SC. Some get hammered more than others. Not neglect others.
15:47:24 <Joshue108> ack alex
15:47:30 <Mike_Elledge> JO: If no objection then it is a good thing.
15:48:21 <Mike_Elledge> JamesN: Given that there is a particular schedule shouldn[t we focus on likely ones being approved.
15:48:56 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:49:00 <Mike_Elledge> JO: An issue we've been working with for awhile. Have SC managers that shepherd process.
15:49:16 <jamesn> s/JamesN: Given/AlexLi: Given/
15:50:03 <Mike_Elledge> AK: lol To Alex and James' points wanted to publixh monthly and tehre might be 5-6 new SC, wanted to make them available for transparency. Prioritizing? Have been doing with TF facilitators. Have been doing that and will continue.
15:50:09 <Joshue108> q?
15:50:27 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Will get back to you Laura.
15:50:34 <laura> Thanks, Josh.
15:50:46 <jamesn> just want to put on record that if you get no public comments on a draft it doesn't meant no one has any problems with it - it just means no one has read it
15:51:02 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Should we put out a survey for consensus.
15:51:09 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Don't need for process.
15:51:13 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:51:20 <Joshue108> ack Mike
15:52:02 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Want to manage the flow but go through more efficiiently.
15:52:14 <LisaSeeman> Q
15:52:28 <Mike_Elledge> JO: We will go to every other week for SC discussions.
15:53:13 <Mike_Elledge> LS: We might need to re-adjust how we're dealing with 2.1 SC. Ppl work together to decide how to set priorities.
15:53:34 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Need some non-COGA ppl to help proritize?
15:53:57 <Mike_Elledge> LS: What the pillars are. So we can get them in.
15:54:20 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Something we can talk about on the Thursday call.
15:54:26 <Mike_Elledge> DM: I will help.
15:54:29 <LisaSeeman> :)
15:55:12 <Mike_Elledge> resolution: Success criteria will be released every two weeks
15:55:18 <Mike_Elledge> zakim, next item
15:55:18 <Zakim> agendum 3. "SC managers and comments - overview of process." taken up [from Joshue108]
15:55:40 <Joshue108> RESOLUTION: Success criteria will be released every two weeks
15:55:55 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki/WCAG-2.1-Comments-response-process-for-SC-Managers
15:55:57 <Mike_Elledge> JO: process for managing comments.
15:57:09 <Mike_Elledge> JO: See wiki for how to address comments. Need to have a common process bec comments don't indicate consensus. All stake holders have to be involved. Make sure that comments that get in do indicate consesnsus.
15:57:24 <david-macdonald> q+
15:57:56 <Joshue108> ack dav
15:58:01 <Mike_Elledge> JO: If you have comment that represents concensus, but talking to stakeholders, then put to survey. Time-consuming, but important to process.
15:59:03 <Mike_Elledge> DM: Very casual process for comments. A good thing. Before a formal response, want to ensure that still can have banter. Back and forth essential. Have adopted SC based on comments. At end is the official response.
15:59:32 <Mike_Elledge> DM: Don't want to inhibit that helped in 2.1. Should inform users of the difference.
15:59:59 <Wayne> q+
16:00:46 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Don't want to inhibit. Previous process a bit out-moded, now that have new tools. In terms of process, WG comes back with official response. Maybe times when some comments don't need an official response, or have been dealt with.
16:01:18 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Are we mandated to have official response? Is tehre a way to say they've been considered, but not consensus.
16:02:21 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Have to deomonstrate wide review. But not formal trackign to Formal Recommendation. Make sure all comments are addressed. Whether issue is closed, or go further. Can go further and ask commenter if they are satisifeid.
16:02:49 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Only get 20j% response, though, so not sure if helpful. Maybe say "this was commenter's final response."
16:03:04 <laura> q+
16:03:47 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Leaves open question about dealing with issue back and forth; if it's been dealt with maybe SC manager can just state that.
16:03:47 <david-macdonald> q+
16:04:37 <Mike_Elledge> MC: As far as process goes, we can do that. Wide review draft planned, which is a last call. Commenters may have trouble keeping up; maybe send a wider message asking commenters to take a final look.
16:04:48 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:04:51 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Will update on wiki.
16:05:51 <Mike_Elledge> JamesN: Need to come up with accessible protocol. Can't find topic line with headings. Have to obey 2.0 with commenting process. I do it with screen reader and enlargement: can't find way around, no headings, no landmarks. Wouldn't pass 2.0.
16:06:36 <jamesn> q+ to ask who is responsible for adding the public comment tags to public comments
16:06:46 <Mike_Elledge> JamesN: Can't navigate like we tell people they should. Persons can't go through 200 messages and find topic message they need. It is possible. If anyone does 2.0 analysis fo this content we'd fail.
16:06:57 <Mike_Elledge> JamesN: An authoring issues.
16:07:10 <jamesn> s/Jamesn: Need to/Wayne: Need to/
16:07:19 <Joshue108> q?
16:07:26 <jamesn> s/JamesN: Can't/Wayne: Can't/
16:07:31 <gowerm> q+
16:07:38 <jamesn> s/JamesN: Need to/Wayne: Need to/
16:07:46 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Tool a11y issue. Github interface. Not an oppty for titles for comments. Can't have heading nav that it isn't supported. So know about it and working on it. Mgmt is in Beijing. Will be taking up soon.
16:08:07 <AWK> I think that Wayne is saying that if people put a heading at the start of their comments that a heading is created and is helpful
16:08:08 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:08:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-ag-minutes.html jamesn
16:08:17 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Won't solve instantly, but don't control github. So have to find different tool. I understand what you're saying.
16:08:22 <Wayne> Can't we use markup to include headings
16:08:43 <Mike_Elledge> JO: With due respect to your comments, is a technical issue to the platform.
16:08:46 <Mike_Elledge> JO: ?
16:08:54 <steverep> GitHub itself does do a decent job of marking up headings and landmarks, but the user-generated content can be a problem.  I generally jump from comment to comment in a thread using profile graphics.  A better markup would be each comment as a list item.
16:09:02 <marcjohlic> q+
16:09:10 <david-macdonald> I've created a heading in a comment as a test https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/281#issuecomment-297080689
16:09:23 <jamesn> s/JamesN: An authoring issues./Wayne: An authoring issues./
16:09:25 <LisaSeeman> oh!!
16:09:28 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:09:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-ag-minutes.html jamesn
16:09:54 <allanj> it would be very helpful.
16:09:57 <marcjohlic> -q
16:10:03 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Definitely need to talk about it. Asking ppl to remember to add headings would help.
16:10:25 <Mike_Elledge> MC: Don't think adding heading to every comments is helpful--don't want to overshoot.
16:10:49 <Mike_Elledge> DM: Lots of effort if we were going to add them.
16:11:25 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Hear what you're saying. Thread is about working group's approach.
16:11:41 <gowerm> Nope AWK. I think a bunch of us got dropped. i also couldn't speak
16:12:11 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Can dovetail formal and informal. Not obligated to go through formal process with comments. SC manager can deal with in less formal way.
16:12:16 <Joshue108> q?
16:12:18 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Think a bunch of us got dropped.
16:12:32 <Joshue108> ack laura
16:12:36 <david-macdonald> You're dropped wayne
16:12:48 <Mike_Elledge> laura: Wondering if this process is just for public or members too.
16:13:03 <Mike_Elledge> JO: Is tehre a different weighting?
16:14:02 <Mike_Elledge> MC: W3C doesn't define that. If not doing special tracking, probably not a difference. Replying to public comments should be done.
16:14:19 <kirkwood> me neither
16:14:22 <Mike_Elledge> Hi all, just lost the link. Is everyone still on?
16:14:47 <david-macdonald> +1 on labelling comments as internal vs public but ALL comments in github.
16:15:31 <Mike_Elledge> Can't get back either
16:15:38 <alexli> can't get back in
16:15:43 <kirkwood> can’t get back in
16:16:00 <Joshue108> if you are not calling by computer you wont get in..
16:16:02 <gowerm> connect via computer not the phone
16:16:05 <Joshue108> yeah
16:16:19 <Mike_Elledge> Will join webex
16:16:42 <KimD> *I'm unable to reconnect to audio also
16:16:43 <AWK> meeting 642 418 206
16:16:54 <AWK> s/642 418 206/
16:17:17 <marcjohlic> even dialing in is not working for me - no answer at the dial in numbers
16:17:30 <jamesn> q?
16:17:37 <alexli> +14255387984
16:18:18 <david-macdonald> phone bridge is down folks... try to get in via computer
16:19:06 <MichaelC> s/+14255387984//
16:19:12 <jamesn> ack me
16:19:12 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask who is responsible for adding the public comment tags to public comments
16:19:27 <Mike_Elledge> Computer doesn't like the meeting password
16:20:00 <AWK> JN: Who tags comments as member or public comments? Hasn't been always correct?
16:20:08 <Joshue108> q?
16:20:08 <alexli> i thought i was the only one having problem with the meeting pw on webex
16:20:13 <AWK> Josh: That may have been me
16:20:33 <Joshue108> ack david
16:20:39 <gowerm> q-
16:20:54 <AWK> MC: when it comes to formal response tracking member comments are treated as public comments
16:20:57 <marcjohlic> q+
16:21:07 <laura> bye, wayne
16:21:15 <jasonjgw> No luck either calling the bridge or requesting a call from WebEx.
16:21:19 <Joshue108> ack marc
16:21:38 <AWK> Marc: noticed that a lot of member groups commented in new issues
16:21:44 <AWK> MC: That was the instruction
16:22:25 <Joshue108> q?
16:22:38 <AWK> Josh: We will see what can be figured out regarding making review and responding to comments easier.
16:22:43 <kirkwood> back on
16:23:10 <Mike_Elledge> Meeting pw is that #+two letters item in the meeting notice?
16:23:21 <kirkwood> and I’m gone
16:23:31 <kirkwood> it hung up
16:23:32 <AWK> Trackbot, end meeting
16:23:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:23:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been allanj, KimD, jasonjgw, AWK, Greg_Lowney, MichaelC, Laura, JF, Joshue108, Makoto, ChrisLoiselle, Mike, Pluke, Melanie_Philipp, alastairc,
16:23:36 <Zakim> ... Bruce_Bailey, MikeGower, Mike_Elledge, steverep, Wayne, marcjohlic, Glenda, kirkwood, LisaSeeman, jamesn, Pietro
16:23:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:23:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/25-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:23:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:23:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items