Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group Teleconference

<joanie> agenda: this

<joanie> agenda: be done

<scribe> scribe: janina

December meetings

jd: It's customary to take the last two weeks of December off
... I'm unavailable 7 Dec. Do we want to meet 14 Dec?

mk: Should depend on the agenda?

ss: Would we need it?

Face-to-face in Spring 2018?

jd: At TPAC we determined that a face to face in 2018 would be useful
... I'm suggesting April or May
... Also thinking it could be in Ontario, phps Mozilla in Toronto
... Reasons include key Mozilla participants

mk: Is good for me
... I'm thinking we may need yet another F2F, not just spring and TPAC
... Or phps more days to cover a very full agenda

[discussion of desirable participation and potential venues]

jg: April better than May for me. Could probably participate in person

janina: FYI Passover and Easter are both around April 1

ACRep review of ARIA 1.1 and Core AAM 1.1

<joanie> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/2017-11_PR_wai-aria/results

jd: We have plenty of support to move forward but missing some implementer vendors.

mc: Probably not a problem because they have implementations in AAM
... We have one comment on Dpub module, though supports even if we don't implement the requested change
... I'm working on it

<joanie> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/2017-11_PR_dpub-aria/results

mc: I'm currently looking at publishing on 12 Dec, but want to discuss APG timeline
... Prefer to pub AAMs together, but not really necessary to do that
... Would like to send Transition Request 1 Dec

jd: What's the requested Dpub change?

mc: Want Abstract role to descend from landmark

mk: Let's please not decide such a thing now in haste!

mc: We only need to show we responded to them. They're not opposing moving forward, even if we disagree

jd: I'll look to provide forensic pointer

mc: That would be helpful

ss: Phps for 1.2?

mc: That's a possible response.

jd: But, believe we considered and decided it's not a good idea
... Will try to dig out refs

Repo split and proposed branching procedures

jd: First repo ...

mc: Has been a discussion with Editors for some time
... Moving to have each spec have it's individual repo
... Were waiting for a time when little editing was ongoing, and that's now
... Have begun to split out
... Should be finished soon
... Editor draft location will change
... Expect some files will disappear because they've been moved elsewhere

jd: Wondering redirects in both Master and ghpages

mc: Just being cautious
... If we don't need a gh pages, we won't create--no need

<joanie> master remains the same (unstable, Editor's draft)

<joanie> gh-pages remains the same (snapshot of Editor's draft)

mk: Asks about auto ...

mc; Will set up auto snapshot

<joanie> NEW: stable branch will be used for Working Draft content (it won't be the Working Draft, however; Michael does the publishing routine.). This is where stuff goes when "done" as in completed the new-workflow process agreed upon during TPAC.

<MichaelC> Workflow proposal

<joanie> NEW: Version branch (e.g. "1.1") will be done when spec enters CR so we can immediately begin working on new versions.

jd: i.e. CR == API Freeze

mk: Asking about tag

jd: Can branch and tag

mk: Agree the CR timing

mc: People outside the WG unlikely to see Editors Drafts

mk: Concerned it's easy to see what is planned for next rev

mc: Master would have the things not yet stable

mk: Asking about picking and choosing what's merged and what's not merged

jd: Can squash and merge
... Leaves us with only one thing to cherry pick in
... Believe this isn't difficult, incl merge conflict resolution

mk: Suggesting Master should be mostly stable

mc: May need to develop discipline
... But note this is for WG participants--not public

mc; Noting a new tool PR Preview -- generates a preview and may help in workflow

<joanie> https://github.com/tobie/pr-preview

mc: Should happen within the coming week
... Tooling probably in January
... Repo Manager -- tracks changes from non patent agreement contributors

jg: How will this impact if we have additional Editors?
... Isn't this for single Editor?

jd: No
... Work would be in feature branch. Could be many people working there. Only when finished does it move to Master

mc: This procedure should not intro new conflicts

mk: Concerned about people continuing to add to feature branch after Master commit
... It's the forking which is main concern

mc: Should not need forks
... Key is to protect Master and Stable -- work among many in feature branches should be OK
... Are we agreed on publishing timelines?

mk CfC for APG?

mk: Have given notice this is coming. Would Tuesday work?

mc: Can't have CfC closing on pub date
... Webmaster will be overloaded on the 14th, would like to pub sooner

mk: Unsure I can stable our branch by the 5th

mc: We probably don't need a full 7 day CfC

janina: Notes group policy is 48-hours

mk: So CfC closing the 8th?
... OK. Let me know anything you need from me

mc: Messaging?

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)

Found embedded ScribeOptions:  -final

*** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS ***

Default Present: Joanmarie_Diggs, Stefan, Schnabel, janina, Stefan_Schnabel, Irfan_Ali, matt_king, jongund, MichaelC
Present: Irfan_Ali Joanmarie_Diggs MichaelC Stefan_Schnabel janina jongund matt_king
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Found Date: 30 Nov 2017
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)