See also: IRC log
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_apa
<scribe> scribe: janina
mc: Unclear why an informative
section would be judged "out of scope."
... Also unclear why a single individual can decide and
close
... Seems insufficient communication
... Suggest we might need to inform Director commentor did not
accept disposition--short of an FO
lw: Reason is editor empowered to
determine
... Hard to include even informative when ref to outside
spec--issues yet to be opened, and likely still open when Push
goes TR
... Many specs reference Notifications API
... Seems slippery slope
cn: No objection on
principle
... Problem content not specific to the spec it was to be
included in
... Appropriate all kinds of places --
js: Asks whether Notification draft sufficient to file?
cn: Yes -- don't wait for code
mc: Experience was super concrete proposals is preferred -- description alone insufficient
<chaals> [I think what needs to be concrete is the clear problem statement, and I think that is in the proposal for Notifications]
mc: We have history of pointing to issues in other specs, esp WCAG
lw: RE should code be in the
proposal ...
... would be useful, but it's already good enough to start the
discussion
js: Raises the meta question of checking for a11y impact on any given spec
lw: Notes security and privacy are now given
mc; Spoke with Ralph about this --
mc: Belief that security and
privacy sections generally needed, but a11y not generally
needed
... Did encourage recommending impact sections
mc; Should be more than follow wcag
mc: Isn't that supposed to happen anyway?
js: Believe pointing to specific wcag provisions that are particularly applicable is valuable, given wcag is huge
mc: Devs don't always agree
cn: Have serious issue with a11y
not as important/relevant as security/privacy
... Will take that up
... Clear Push can be used to do dumb things--like most any
spec
... That alone isn't sufficient reason
... If WHAT drops the request entirely, aPA could write a
note
mc: Suggest a running APA discussion on what our position on impact statements in specs should be
Conversation with Johannes now scheduled for 13 Sep
<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/UseCases
<MichaelC> action-2135 due 9 months
<trackbot> Set action-2135 Review cloud browser use cases https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/UseCases due date to 2018-05-30.
<chaals> action-2141?
<trackbot> action-2141 -- Léonie Watson to Review verifiable claims data model and representations https://www.w3.org/tr/verifiable-claims-data-model/ -- due 2017-08-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2141
mc: Note updates to payments specs
mc: Re ways to motivate people to
do reviews for APA
... Would getting credit help?
... Idea is to point to APA reviewers when a spec does credite
commentors
cn: Beware unintended
consequences ...
... Believe pointing to actual comments and implementation in
spec should suffice
<tink> Zakim: /me has to drop for another meeting.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/draft/proposal for Notifications/ Default Present: janina, Joanmarie_Diggs, chaals, tink Present: janina Joanmarie_Diggs chaals tink Regrets: MichielBijl Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Date: 30 Aug 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/08/30-apa-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]