13:53:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:53:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/26-wcag-act-irc
13:54:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:54:00 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag-act
13:54:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
13:54:02 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
13:54:03 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:54:03 <trackbot> Date: 26 June 2017
13:54:08 <Wilco> agenda?
13:54:16 <Wilco> agenda+ 2017 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium (26-27 Oct.)
13:54:41 <Wilco> agenda+ ACT review process https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process
13:54:47 <Wilco> agenda+ Is there enough of an incentive for tool developers and evaluation methodologies to use the review process?
13:54:54 <Wilco> agenda+ What are the requirements we want to achieve with the review process?
13:55:03 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #wcag-act
13:55:03 <Wilco> agenda+ What's the overall approach for developing and reviewing test rules?
13:55:10 <Wilco> agenda+ Where will we develop them - wiki, github, other?
13:55:23 <Wilco> agenda+ Staging in github vs. publication on W3C site - what criteria must be met?
13:55:29 <Wilco> agenda+ Auto-WCAG Rules - which ones to use to create a conforming example? https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/pages/rules.html
13:55:40 <Wilco> agenda+ Survey on availability for calls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/availability/
13:55:49 <Wilco> agenda+ Book and register for TPAC: Thurs-Fri is the ACT meeting 3 July - no meeting due to U.S. holiday, next meeting will be on 10 July
13:58:04 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
14:00:22 <Sujasree> Sujasree has joined #wcag-act
14:01:17 <anne_thyme> anne_thyme has joined #wcag-act
14:03:24 <shadi> present+
14:03:27 <cpandhi> cpandhi has joined #wcag-act
14:03:38 <cpandhi> present +
14:03:42 <Wilco> paresent+
14:03:50 <anne_thyme> present +
14:03:52 <cpandhi> zakim take up next
14:03:52 <Sujasree> present+
14:03:54 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
14:04:05 <Wilco> agenda?
14:04:19 <shadi> present+ Wilco
14:04:22 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
14:04:34 <rdeltour> present+
14:04:50 <cpandhi> scribe cpandhi
14:04:52 <maryjom> present+Mary_Jo_Mueller
14:05:01 <shadi> scribe: Charu
14:05:08 <shadi> scribenick: cpandhi
14:05:45 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 1
14:05:46 <Zakim> agendum 1. "2017 ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium (26-27 Oct.)" taken up [from Wilco]
14:05:49 <shadi> https://ictaccessibilitytesting.org/home.html
14:06:35 <cpandhi> Wilco: anyone attending the ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium, then they can be on a panel with me
14:07:18 <Manoj> Manoj has joined #wcag-act
14:07:34 <cpandhi> Shadi: the paper will be to present the work done by this group
14:08:03 <cpandhi> zakim, take up next
14:08:03 <Zakim> agendum 2. "ACT review process https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process" taken up [from Wilco]
14:08:51 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
14:09:01 <cpandhi> Wilco: Shadi put togather a proposal to publish ACT rules
14:09:06 <MoeKraft> No audio, will join over the phone
14:09:19 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #wcag-act
14:09:47 <Wilco> agenda?
14:10:02 <cpandhi> Wilco: we have a bunch of questions in the agenda
14:10:49 <cpandhi> Shadi: has anybody not seen the review process? hope everyone has seen it
14:11:33 <cpandhi> Shadi: the whole modal is built on the approach that will drive the process which a high threshold
14:12:06 <cpandhi> Shadi: provide rules, test cases and you have to implement it
14:12:46 <cpandhi> Shadi: the idea being that developer will have the motivation to go through the process to validate the rules.
14:12:49 <agarrison> q+
14:13:29 <cpandhi> Shadi: there may be a bottle neck if there are conflicts
14:14:41 <cpandhi> Shadi: So the question is would the developers would have the incentive to go through such a process or do we want to develop a different approach
14:15:07 <cpandhi> Wilco: i would like to get a take of everyone on the call
14:16:30 <cpandhi> Alistare: i have a copy right kind of question, if someone contributes then does W3C get that copyright
14:17:16 <cpandhi> Shadi: yes, when you contribute to W3C, it is petent free and everyone gets to use it patent free and you do not have to pay to use it
14:17:57 <cpandhi> Shadi: W3C will list the contributers as editors
14:19:11 <rdeltour> q+
14:19:18 <MoeKraft> q+
14:19:22 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/IBMa/Va11yS/blob/master/NOTICE.md
14:19:30 <cpandhi> Alistaire: On the open source licencing
14:19:34 <agarrison> q-
14:19:51 <cpandhi> Shadi: there is a legal answer and i will have to get that for you
14:20:07 <MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document
14:20:32 <cpandhi> Shadi:thanks Alsitaire fo for the questions, will you still go through the process
14:21:44 <Wilco> ack r
14:21:45 <cpandhi> Alistaire: prob no, how much speed it there in the process? we need to fix bugs or implement something new, it would be higher if open source
14:21:50 <Wilco> q+
14:22:42 <MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html
14:22:55 <cpandhi> Shadi: Moe just pasted the link to the W3C Software copy right
14:22:58 <MoeKraft> q-
14:23:22 <cpandhi> Shadi: Moe has pasted the test suite copy right licence
14:23:51 <cpandhi> Shadi: so we have answers in these documents
14:24:47 <cpandhi> Alison: Do we want to think in terms of the duration review period
14:25:40 <cpandhi> Shadi: Good points, so lets say you have a test rule to contribute, your tool will implement and then put in Github for others to implement
14:26:01 <cpandhi> Shadi: that is to reduce the bottlenect through Github
14:27:03 <cpandhi> Shadi: i am looking at Auto WCAG
14:28:18 <cpandhi> Shadi: The idea is the techniques will be developed outside and bring into the group
14:28:38 <cpandhi> Shadi: SInce i have you on the line, what are your thoughts?
14:29:14 <cpandhi> Romain: I can't commit but this is close to something we do, so mostly positive
14:29:40 <shadi> s/Alison/Alistair
14:30:41 <cpandhi> Wilco: I have put lot of thought, i would put rules in Auto WCAG, though it is slow, the review process is good and feedback that come out is good
14:30:56 <cpandhi> Shadi: would the feedback be fast
14:31:33 <cpandhi> Wilco: It would be a month for the feedback to come through as we have monthly meetings
14:32:18 <cpandhi> Wilco: the bottle neck is not we can't process the rules fast enough, we do not have enough contributers
14:32:35 <shadi> q?
14:32:43 <cpandhi> Wilco: if we have enough contribters, it would speed up the process
14:33:04 <anne_thyme> q+
14:33:10 <shadi> ack wil
14:33:24 <cpandhi> Wilso: i have a second point, looking at our process, we review, fix bugs and implement the rule
14:34:16 <cpandhi> Wilco: we contribute a rule, we have test cases and we let the ACT WG to approve
14:34:24 <Wilco> ack a
14:34:29 <cpandhi> Shadi: we have Ann on queue
14:34:51 <shadi> s/Wilso/Wilco
14:34:58 <cpandhi> Ann: Ilike the new suggestion, will have the oppertunity to speak up
14:35:11 <rdeltour> q+
14:35:39 <Sujasree> +1 for Wilco on "we contribute a rule, we have test cases and we let the ACT WG to approve"
14:35:42 <cpandhi> Ann: So far we have not had developers to contribute, so they can write the rules and contribute
14:35:55 <Sujasree> after ACT WG approval,  may be probably we can open it for Auto WCAG group to comment ?
14:36:43 <cpandhi> Ann: This will solve our problems for our developers to contribute due to timing conflicts with the Auto WCAG
14:37:21 <cpandhi> Shadi: The other approach is to write a rule and reach out to others to impliment, morw work
14:38:03 <cpandhi> Ann: So if we know who to reach or have a list it would be easy
14:39:09 <cpandhi> Romain: The practicality of the process as described with Github tracking for reviews and comments would be familliar for developers and would be easy to reach out to devlopers
14:39:11 <agarrison> q+
14:39:22 <shadi> ack rd
14:39:53 <cpandhi> Wilco: i see it is a familliar approach but it should not be the only one, it would have the bottle neck risk
14:40:32 <cpandhi> Wilco: there could be organization that will contribute but maintained by W3C
14:42:04 <cpandhi> Shadi: By have a central process there are advantages on the know hows
14:43:01 <cpandhi> Alistair: Reflecting on what peoaple said, It would constrain people heavily with a format
14:44:12 <cpandhi> Alistair: how do we deal with rejections? I spend a year to get my techique through and it was a lot of effort
14:44:44 <cpandhi> Shadi: There are 2 aspects, the logistics and the contents
14:45:43 <cpandhi> Shadi: thats is why my suggestion is to work on test cases, rather then deal with hipotathical questions
14:46:46 <cpandhi> Sujasree: I like the approach of have the working gruoup to approve within a cetain time frame
14:47:31 <cpandhi> SHadi: My concern is the WG has too much responsibility to approve
14:47:54 <cpandhi> Shadi: so i am suggesting is a hybrid approach
14:48:18 <cpandhi> Sujasree: If the group approves we can move faster
14:48:54 <cpandhi> Shadi: What if it put for review and do not recieve feedback
14:49:03 <MoeKraft> q+
14:49:09 <shadi> ack ag
14:49:11 <cpandhi> Shadi: Moe
14:49:23 <shadi> ack moe
14:50:04 <cpandhi> Moe: I agree with Shadi,  i like the idea that the WG reviews and fallows a set process, but i do not want it to be too prescriptive
14:50:35 <Wilco> q+
14:50:53 <cpandhi> Moe: It is more a honor system  where folks contribute and gets reviewed
14:51:18 <shadi> ack w
14:51:28 <cpandhi> Moe: to require a author to get approval from the central authority will be too slow
14:52:26 <cpandhi> Wilco: I like Sujasree's suggestion of haveing a review process, make it more a test case driven process
14:53:00 <cpandhi> Wilco: you contribute test cases to demonstrate the change
14:54:03 <cpandhi> Wilco: We have a rule that may have bug, while IBM may have the same rules implemented in a different way, how do we resolve
14:54:54 <cpandhi> Shadi: good feedback, there is some thought of haveing a central group drive rather then self implementation
14:55:30 <cpandhi> Shadi: Auto WCAG wll support the contributers
14:56:03 <cpandhi> Shadi: i will take another stab to update and email the group
14:56:15 <cpandhi> Wico: any last comments
14:56:38 <cpandhi> Wilco: do want someone to work with you on this
14:56:44 <Wilco> agenda?
14:57:07 <cpandhi> Shadi: will take another stab, please do not be shy to provide feedback
14:59:03 <cpandhi> Wilco: Next Monday is holidy in US so we will skip next week meeting
15:11:45 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
15:11:45 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:11:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been shadi, Sujasree, ChrisLoiselle, Wilco, rdeltour, Mary_Jo_Mueller
15:11:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:11:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/26-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
15:11:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:11:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items