Preparation of drafts (XAUR and RTC) for review and publication.

<Joshue_108_> scribenick: Joshue108_

<Joshue_108_> JW: I'm going to summarise..

<Joshue_108_> Regarding document status, I understand that the XAUR is progressing to publication.

<Joshue_108_> And the RTC draft, Josh was to make some changes.. a la some of my comments.

<Joshue_108_> The editorial comments can be addressed..

<Joshue_108_> JS: Sounds good.

<jasonjgw> Josh has been concentrating on XAUR work, and hasn't yet addressed some of the more substantive comments from Jason.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: XAUR stuff has taken up a lot of my time, and we may need a bit of room or time to work on the RTC doc.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Shawns input was super helpful

<jasonjgw> Josh: confirms there are editorial issues being addressed and communication has been taking place by e-mail.

<Joshue_108_> JB: Just not that we can't rely on her to regularily do that, especially with a higher volume of docs.

<Joshue_108_> So copy editing etc can be shared in the group..

<Joshue_108_> JS: I agree with all of that, I could have done some more but what we got from Shawn is great as a template, in terms of editorial rigour.

<Joshue_108_> +1 to Janina.

<jasonjgw> Josh: believes the changes have been done as required before a transition request. He has found the editorial process helpful and informative, which will facilitate review of future documents.

<Joshue_108_> JS: XAUR is ready to go to transition request?

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Yes.

<Joshue_108_> I've learned a lot in the process that I can use in future work.

<Joshue_108_> JB: You mentioned a blog josh, is that for XAUR?

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Yes

<Joshue_108_> JB: Blog writting etc need a lot of review to get it ready, many cycles.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Am prepared for churn!

<Joshue_108_> JS: Just to clarify we can move ahead to publish the doc, the blog etc isn't totally tied in with it.

<Joshue_108_> JB: You would get better pick up if the dates were not aligned.

<Joshue_108_> JS: I'm thinking days, not weeks.

<Joshue_108_> Days would not be a problem, this will be open for comment probably past CSUN.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: I'll be starting work on blog post for XAUR v soon.

<Joshue_108_> JS: If we can get the transition request done etc before the 27th then that should be enough time for a blog post.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Works for me.

<Joshue_108_> JS: I think that is reasonable. Can review etc.

<Joshue_108_> JW: On the RTC, Josh you are saying there are some more substantive comments of mine..

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Yes.

<Joshue_108_> JW: That fine as they can wait until the publication of the draft.

<Joshue_108_> JW: So where do you think it is at?

<jasonjgw> Josh: He has editorial work to complete on the real-time communication document. He wouldn't wish to delay publication for more substantive issues that can be addressed later.

<jasonjgw> Josh hopes to have it ready by next Wednesday.

<jasonjgw> Josh notes the need for comparable editorial review/quality to that achieved in the XAUR.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: So we are there with the XAUR, and it is higher quality since the recent spate of feedback and need to get the RTC doc to a similar grade.

<Joshue_108_> JS: Regarding Verifiable Claims, are we able to decide soon if we can provide the high quality feedback they asked for, use cases etc?

<Joshue_108_> JW: Thats next agenda.

<Joshue_108_> JW: I think we have an agreement to have RTC on the agenda next week.

<jasonjgw> Josh inquires into the amount of feedback time that should be given.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Ok, I'll add first week of April as the close to requested feedback etc for XAUR.

<Joshue_108_> JW: Any other comments.

<Joshue_108_> SH: Next week I'm presenting at the OZEWAI conf would like to present our XAUR work at that.

<Joshue_108_> Are there any restrictions to this?

<Joshue_108_> JS: I would point to the editors draft as the latest version.

<Joshue_108_> SH: Ok, great.

<Joshue_108_> Scott, use this URL http://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/XAUR/xaur/index.html

<Joshue_108_> JB: Thanks for that, its great to hear as we need to get people engaged in this any other related work.

<Joshue_108_> Think of the doc, as a welcome mat that you get to talk about as we can engage people and involve them etc.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: I've put the URI into IRC.

<Joshue_108_> JW: The doc is in a good state at the mo.

<Joshue_108_> JW: It's good to encourage people to get involved, anything else to discuss?

<Judy> ozewai

<Joshue_108_> JB: So for WebRTC, I think there is a new charter request.

<Joshue_108_> I'm not sure if there has been a horizontal request review, Michael has been forwarding etc to APA/RQTF etc.

<Joshue_108_> JB: looks for URIs

<Joshue_108_> JW: In view of that, when the RTC work is published in working draft, then APA would communicate that fact to WebRTC and related groups?

<Joshue_108_> Or are they expected to just pick up on it in the announcements?

<Joshue_108_> JS: Discusses APA SOP - and upcoming charter review (as standard in weekly calls)

<Joshue_108_> JS: We also talk about new publications, every week.

<Joshue_108_> JS: And someone gets assigned, likely Jason and Josh *grin

<Joshue_108_> JS: I was just wondering how groups find out about this.

<Joshue_108_> JB: In WebRTC group there is some prep on a new charter.

<Joshue_108_> Horizontal reviews were usually done by team but that is now shared by APA.

<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-charter/pull/53

<Joshue_108_> here is the link..

<Joshue_108_> Because this TF is working directly with these areas, its a good chance to contribute etc

<Joshue_108_> JS: A general question, is how do we make anyone aware of any publication.

<Joshue_108_> JS: There are different strategies and approaches.

<Joshue_108_> JW: I think we are fine, the announcements and blog posts will circulate it etc.

<Joshue_108_> And open to other being told about it.

<Joshue_108_> We should look at the charter.

<Joshue_108_> JS: People do notice these things... gives example.

<Judy> [JB: Notes that with regard to the link to new RTC charter prep above, it would be helpful to have help spotting potential issues in that, but please if possible get that feedback to me so we can get it in in a coordinated way]

<Joshue_108_> JW: Good to know. I think we know where we are at?

<Joshue_108_> Anything more on charter review?

<Joshue_108_> I'll have a look after meeting.

<Joshue_108_> JOC: I'll look also

<Joshue_108_> JB: Discusses the dangers of boilerplate

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Look forward to seeing what Jason comes back with.

<Joshue_108_> JS: I've not read it, but if they talk about requirements gathering process they may say that APA is doing it in this area for a11y.

<Joshue_108_> JB: Be careful.

<Joshue_108_> JS: I'll run feedback etc by you and Michael, Michael is the co-ordination point.

<Joshue_108_> JW: Will co-ordinate with Michael and Judy.

<Joshue_108_> JS: If we want to talk about it we can.

<Joshue_108_> JS: Just to close the conversation, when we spoke at TPAC and asked them about the suitable home for our Use Cases - we understood this would feed into their 2.0 specs.

<Joshue_108_> They spoke of doing a better job with a11y - so it is collegial, we can nail things down, but we have a good start.

<Joshue_108_> JW: It has implications for a11y.

<Joshue_108_> JB: For later agenda, I'm wondering if this group would like to talk about video conferencing etc

<Joshue_108_> SH: I think its a good topic

<Joshue_108_> JW: There could be an intersection between the two docs, so we should talk about it.

Verifiable Credentials - accessibility-related use cases.

<Joshue_108_> JW: In order to progress this area, I've made some changes to the wiki where we are collecting use cases.

<Joshue_108_> The group is looking for some use cases, high priority ones, this month.

<Joshue_108_> I tried to capture some new ones, and made editorial fixes

<Joshue_108_> There is progress on this..

<Joshue_108_> The questions are two folds, do we have other use cases to include?

<Joshue_108_> And what are the priority ones?

<Joshue_108_> JS: My recollection was Manu said, send them to him and he will move them forward.

<Joshue_108_> We should rank them from our perspective.

<Joshue_108_> And have that discussion when we look at them.

<Joshue_108_> We may want to add some etc but next steps are to pick out the more compelling ones.

<Joshue_108_> Here is the wiki page

<Joshue_108_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Some_use_cases_for_verifiable_credentials

<Joshue_108_> SH: Reasonable to bundle them together.

<Joshue_108_> JW: Sounds good, we can look to prioritise etc as what are the best uses of Verfiable Claims.

<Zakim> Joshue_108_, you wanted to ask Jason to take us through the new additions

<Joshue_108_> JOC: Asks for a run down of the new use cases..

<Joshue_108_> JW: We have discussed these and I've just added them to the wiki.

<Joshue_108_> We are also interested in review of what is there, clarificatione etc.

<Joshue_108_> JS: The conformance assertions will be interesting.

<Joshue_108_> JW: Will be helpful for a11y pros.

<Joshue_108_> JS: We can discuss it now?

<Joshue_108_> JS: I'm wondering if Verifiable Claims can handle this?

<Joshue_108_> Especially with what is happening in other groups, a la WCAG.

<Joshue_108_> JS: So whats new is that audits will be timestamped, a la Silver - could be volumous.

<Joshue_108_> JW: Janina raises a good question around the assertions being made.

<Joshue_108_> JS: Also a question about if our tech is robust for any kind of assertion.

<Joshue_108_> JW: I'll go back and clarify etc

<Zakim> Joshue_108_, you wanted to say more use cases will be revealed when we see how aspects of the privacy and security landscape develops

<jasonjgw> Josh anticipates future use cases related to privacy and security, suggesting we should acknowledge that these are on our agenda for future consideration.

<jasonjgw> Josh: notes that we have a general sense of there being issues, and there is more to be said that hasn't been articulated yet.

<Joshue_108_> JW: I can make sure some of those points are included.

<Joshue_108_> It would be good to get comments etc and suggestions on what is most significant to them.

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)

Succeeded: s/@@/OZEWAI/
Succeeded: s/aware of the publication/aware of any publication/
Default Present: jasonjgw, janina, Joshue_108_, scott_h, SteveNoble, Judy
Present: jasonjgw janina Joshue_108_ scott_h SteveNoble Judy
Found ScribeNick: Joshue108_
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Joshue108_> ...
Inferring Scribes: Joshue108_

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 162 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Found Date: 05 Feb 2020
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.)