Jeanne: like to talk about the
AGWG proces we want to takeup
... like to talk about the silver timeline
JF: guilty as charged
Jeanne: like to talk about that first
JF: less about the process
... anyone have draft charter?
BB: Charter for Silver?
<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2019/charter.html
JF: AG working group, my concern
is about the timeline
... candidate recommendation to recommendation in 6
months
... not realistic 18 months for addressing external
feedback
... this new thing is a reimagination of what we are doing
which will generate a ton of feedback needing tons of
explanation
... it will be a struggle to get done between November and
April 2022 not realistic
<CharlesHall> i see 24 months from Editor Draft to Candidate Recommendation. a, I reading this incorrectly?
<JF> Timeline November 2019: First Public Working Draft of Silver November 2019: First Public Working Draft of WCAG 2.2 May 2020: WCAG 2.2 Candidate Recommendation November 2020: WCAG 2.2 Recommendation November 2021: Silver Candidate Recommendation April 2022: Silver Recommendation
<CharlesHall> November 2019: First Public Working Draft of Silver ยป November 2021: Silver Candidate Recommendation
CA: don't have John's experience don't think we have migrated enough to silver model
JF: what efforts we have run into
a lot of complex questions
... thought points would be extremely fluid
... example 95 percent points on an image, adding pages alt
text point goes down. constantly changing point value buckets.
my assumption would be that point would be fluid
... making candidate recommendations by fall is aggressive and
feedback is unrealistic
... hard questions still need to be resolved and COGA related
things
... even 2.x into silver framework will be diffiucult rather
under promise and over deliver
Jeanne: do you have another proposal for timeframe?
JF: canditat recommentadtion
spring summer of 2022
... septmeber 2022 gives us 18 months for candidate
recommendation
... want to be able to incorporate lots of feedback
... testing, understanding, language, architecture, we're
familiar with it. some don't fully understand it. some think
its going to be easy.
... evidence says not going to be easy
Jeanne: see our timeline i see migrating 2.x for the next 9 month and then having a year to work on new material
JF: month 6 takes us to MArch
2020
... another year 5rto march 2021
Jeanne: i do agree comment period needs to be done properly to check math.
<JF> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Reports
CH: I understand the dilema of incoproate comments along the way?
Jeanne: some companies don't comment until gets to cndidate recommendation
CH: so regardless we need amount of time fixed? after candidate recommendation
JF: i posted timeline
... signal to wider community for review, gather implementation
experience
Jeanne: the examples won't be
difficult
... we need to get implementation examples in advance
... think we can do better learn from that
JF: candidate recommendation its
a mininmum of 3 months for patent
... policy
... to try to do candidate to proposed rec no time to answer
all the things
Jeanne: let me look at timeline again
JF: 2.3 for timeline
... sticking point is the timeline
Jeanne: march 2021, might be a date math problem.
JF: I am more concerned, the time calculation doesn't fully make sense
Jeanne: we had it all layed out
and we were fixing mistakes not sure if it turned out
... lets get everyones concerns out. and shawn and i can make
sure everyone's concerns are addresssed
BB: I'd like to see the propsed recommendcation as well
JF: 6 months is unrealistic
BB: optimistic
Jeanne: proposed 18 months to do that whole package
JF: candidate recommendation by 2012 18 months is 2023
Jeann: spend a year until Csun 2022 new conttent. then go to candidate recommendation 2021
JF: i think scheduling is overly optimistic
Jeanne: which part?
JF: the whole writing part
... we haven't addressed the points, speed is slow
Jeanne: we keep addressing conformance
JF: believe it will take longer
than estimated. rather under promise in the charter
... nothing by end of next charter, then bought yourself a
year
... much rather be saying that
Jeanne: run me through the dates for next charter
JF: proposed its going to be. three year charter
Jeanne: has to be a two year charter
JF: rther no be constrained into
a really tight frmework, over delivering is a good thing
... its not about the value of work its about the timeline
Jeanne: if we are going to say that its going to be that much longer than two years then incubation
CA: no clue about in incubation means
Jeanne: when we charter its part
of W3C strict timelines
... if in community group we are not subject to timelines
... Shawn and I have discussed staying in community group
JF: its also a task force
CA: I can't possibly understand, impact
JF: anything that needs to be
incubated should stay in community group.
... timeline in draft charter produce evidence. first publish
2.2. ready by November 2020. The charter tislef will go 2022.
WCAG 2.3 in a two year timeframe. desire to turn more forces to
Silver
... other thing November this year public working draft.
november 2021 cndidate recommendation after that 6 months
Janne: shouldn't be novmber 2021 should be March 2021
JF: like to see it ready for April 2022. don't have to do in current charter roll into next
Jeanne: start with basics. can we move WCAG content in 9 months
JF: not comforable
CA: not comfortable
JF: double that
CA: larger timefram needed
Cybel: to break down task based
component based how long that take and how long to scale
up
... shock me if got first part through end of summer
<CharlesHall> can we simply address the landmine head-on and remove any specific Silver timeline from this 2.2 Charter?
JF: my concern as well
CH: putting all work on hold, timeline on hold
Jeanne: think we could do it all, could go directly into first public wokrg draft and have long candidate recommendation iand finish in two years
<JF> The math: Nov. 2019 (+ 18 months for migration) Mar. 2021 Mar. 2021 (+ 18 months for new content) Sep. 2022 Sept. 2022 = Candidate + 18 months for comment processing mar. 2024
Jeanne: if we don't charter
now
... that's five years out
JF: I think it's 3-5 years
FG: under promise and over deliver
Jeanne: we could hold to orignal
plan of 1 year for new content
... we could hold new content
... barrier of existing content at least gets us into 2023
CA: not sure about 3 versus 5 years
JJF: if going to October 2021 its outside scope, wether its 3 years or 2 years and not part of schedule of AG working group I'm ok with that too
JF: there are other deliverables
could be ongoing work without specifying specific W3C process
breakpoint
... in two or three years rather give us more runway. would
like to beat the deadline
... rather give us the timeline and runway to do it right
... want to publish whats ready and keep moving on evergreen
standard
... once published want to see regular updates
... if we do in 12 months great
CA: we are working on like to
address a question that affects Cybell and I
... my topic is should Cybell and I work on process or
continueing 2.1 migration
JF: what do you mean by process?
CA: we have come up with process
that think is valuable
... will focus on bringing over color contrast to Silver
format
... progress is in a document and what I encountered in
bringing the SC inot the silver format. observations and
challenges
... should we continue on process or migration?
Jeann: at this point priority is migration
CA: encountered scope creep how
could it be best migrate
... lets not add or subtract lets bring it in as is for a pure
migration
... in some cases pure is not possible
... which found in migrating color contrast
<CharlesHall> sorry. have to drop off call for prep for next meeting.
<JF> +1 to Bruce, and I'll add that "process" also includes the "points" discussion
BB: can't help but tweek process
during migration throug metheds
... process needs to be updated,
... color contrast is the toughest
CA: interested in jumping over to headings, Cybell?
Cybell: thought Jean had done that and revampers
Jeanne: we did not revamp
it
... yes this is taking a long time
Cybell: availble monday 5-7pm
JF: leaving
Cybell: can you contribute to item number 3
JF: happy to help, bye
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think developing the process and migrating are interlinked
Cybell: headings and process
<Jan> If you need additional help on Monday, I can be available from 5-7 EST
Cybell: we'll work on
Jeanne: we need data to work with, which we don't have
Cybel: process means
reproducability
... clear and simple and lean easy to follow
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Present: jeanne JF johnkirkwood CharlesHall KimD Cyborg LuisG Jan bruce_bailey Regrets: Shawn Makoto Chris Denis Angela No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: johnkirkwood Inferring Scribes: johnkirkwood Found Date: 14 Jun 2019 People with action items: 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]