wilco: So we have 1 rule that was approved, and a survey that I still need to look at.
... There are two others that I am looking to bring back this week.
maryjom: Let me know and I will make a survey.
wilco: They need to go through act-r review, so it will be a week.
* Shadi found that the email did not have the correct date, and may explain attendance *
wilco: There are a few rules on their way, but definitely not done. The review period for the currently submitted rules is done.
... Do we need anything else to go to recommendation?
shadi: We do need a working group decision. Then I think you could contact the AG chairs and bring in an update in one of the next meetings. Then they need to make a decision that we can point to when making the transition request.
... There were some editorial changes correct?
... With these minor changes we will be trying to publish, but the working group needs to be aware of.
wilco: I will reach out to the chairs to see if we can get on the agenda next week.
... Who would be doing the work moving the rule?
shadi: it will be done manually, by myself or daniel
... AG needs to approve that we are approving such a rule. The exact look does not need to be approved, e.g. reviewing in markdown, but publishing in html
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules
shadi: we can check if eric can give us a small template or something. For now we can do it manually but can eventually make a system.
wilco: If we do that then we have something to give AG for review. It seems to me like if we need to set it up and get AG approval (which will take at least two weeks).
... Not publishing the spec is not an option. Not publishing the rules might be.
... If we could the rules done next week, we need to review it (1 week), then ag needs to review (2 weeks), and then put it in some design.
shadi: The design can happen concurrently.
wilco: It would take at least 4 weeks, if there are no problems. Seems unlikely
shadi: trying to figure out how to give us maximum chances of having rules with the rec.
wilco: If we only end up having 2 or 3 rules, is that sufficient?
shadi: I don't know, we have this big rec and we only have a couple rules for it. Is it better than nothing and point towards the ACT-R
wilco: I think it would be better to point to ACT-R
maryjom: I agree I think we should point ACT-R
trevor: agreed, breadth is a primary concern.
wilco: It might also be a good time to call for implementations.
shadi: We are already going to be publishing, but if we have a couple of rules that make i through the process it may be better
wilco: Could we publish them as drafts?
shadi: What does the draft imply?
wilco: Draft is for the content of the rule. Trying to say this is where you will find the rules once a larger set is available.
shadi: That doesn't add that much value. What is the difference between them and what is on the act-r group.
... We can say they aren't a set, but they are a version 1. They are more mature and have passing wg approval. I think it will catch interest from more people.
wilco: You want to show something on the W3C site, which I agree with. But clearly describe this is just one not a set.
shadi: I can start working on the page. We will be clear about saying we are not a set, but showing proof two rules made it through the process.
... They were written according to spec, made it through approval, and can help to show whats coming.
maryjom: Fine by me, but I will probably have to reopen the survey to get more participants.
... Reopening until next thursday.
MoeKraft: I wonder if people were honing in one what was particularly happening that week.
maryjom: I always list the active surveys as a reminder.
MoeKraft: When I went to survey it was already closed and I could only saw the results.
wilco: I think we need to a bit of recruiting in ag. See if there are other people we would like to get involved in this reviewing.
... Should we reach out to a couple of people and see if they are interested in the group. It is pretty clear that we are losing momentum. People that were engaged more early on are not as engaged now.
MoeKraft: In the past we might have a working meeting and I was always suprised how many people would show up to help.
shadi: I think there are 2 issues: One is the recruiting or attendance, the other issue is responding to the questionnaires. We have more people in the group than who have responded.
... If you go to the bottom of the list, it shows the non-responders. They may need to be pinged more directly to get them into the habit of it.
... I think the key message is that the group is changing from spec work to reviewing. For some people this may be more exciting and we would like to get them involved.
... We need to coordinate the publication of the cr with the represented groups here. I think we would want to bang some drums again. We should get approvals as soon as possible.
wilco: *going through issues* Getting rules into presentable format for ag group.
shadi: once that is approved that is what I will copy onto the way website.
wilco: If that is the process, then that says we need pull requests for submitting rules. I think that answers agenda item 4.
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules
maryjom: Why does that follow?
wilco: If we are putting html into the above repository, the easiesst way to do that is just to create a pull request.
maryjom; AG wg or ACT wg?
wilco: Just to the ACT task force
maryjom: Last week we had some discussion about using a form that content could get input and automatically create a template of the rule.
... There are some examples of doing something similar.
wilco; It would still be a pull request, but the person doing the submitting doesn't have to do the pull request.
wilco: I think its fine, I don't think we need that initially. It will probably just be me submitting requests for the next couple week.
maryjom: I am worried about github being a barrier of entry to some people.
wilco: Yes I like that we can start with just pull requests, but eventually build out the form.
... I think writing a rule is a lot more involved than writing a policy.
... Is it okay to start with pull requests and eventually move to other mechanisms?
maryjom: Sounds good.
shadi: There are some non-trivial questions like that it would be submitted by a bot instead of the person.
... there will be the same question as techniques.
trevor: I am concerned about the feedback loop.
shadi: Yep that is a question, and another question is how to include the assets. It may just be by email in the beginning until we get something more comprehensive.