wilco: Ag looked at our rules this week, which was a bit earlier than anticipated.
... They looked at 7 rules, and it seems it needed more reviews. For some of the final rules only had a couple of reviews.
... Almost all of the comments were very positive. There were a few changes that needed to be made but were accepted.
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1465
wilco: These 2 PRs need to be merged on request by AG. Please look at these if you have time
levon: how do I mark myself as a reviewer?
wilco: I will need to add you as a reviewer.
... These are almost ready, I have spent the day updating the script for getting the definitions from a seperate page.
... Instead of including repeated defs, we now have seperate definition documents that we can just include.
... I am just testing out and expect it to be done today.
... Next week I should have a MR that can go from staging to the actual site
maryjom: There were a few comments on the link-acc-examples issue
wilco: I will take a look at it
... Congrats everyone, that is 7 more rules approved!
maryjom: The survey is still open until next week
wilco: We had all of the resolutions on the call, so I think it is done
shadi: I spoke with Michael yesterday, we did finally take a look at your JSON and can use it to generate the techniques and understanding documents.
wilco: My only comment was about a PR that's already merged.
... This has one more week, please fill it out.
wilco: It was originally for S.C. 4.1.2 and it got pulled off
... New requirements were added for aria specs, which don't look right to me.
... That would leave this rule with just a couple techniques to map to.
trevor: We had one rule that only mapped to aria-spec that got shelved.
wilco: We did, but I am not sure that this even applies to the aria-spec
... I don't think this rule really maps to anything, so I am unsure how this rule would be useful. Where would we use it
shadi: It is kind of a helpful heuristic, which we might consider in the future. We should probably focus on the core things now.
trevor: I think we should leave the survey open, so others can at least take a look
wilco: That's it for the open surveys
wilco: The first part is getting rid of screening. We don't do screening so I took it out
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/486/files#diff-27111874e33ae6cc0b007b80696fa4b6L28
wilco: The screening process was that before a rule goes to survey we should have a liaison that says whether or not the rule has any obvious problems.
... We don't do that, we just put it in survey, sort of assuming the CG to have done their homework.
shadi: Would a liaison have caught the problem we talked about earlier?
wilco: May have. I think it would still have been brought to the group for discussion.
... I think it would help if there were groups that were less well organized writing rules.
... There are a lot of tests in the CG, so it covers a substantial number of potential problems.
<Wilco> Please rejoin :)
wilco: Sounds like everyone agrees to take it out
... New question about rule being up to date
... Now, when there are minor updates they can be done through a PR instead of using a survey
maryjom: We have another question, didn't we change the WCAG documents to consistent with accessibility reqs
wilco: We do require that it should be decided on a call if the minor updates can be addressed need to be surveyed or merged directly
... Minor changes would need a CFC, but typo fixes wouldn't
maryjom: If its a minor edit it would still need the 48hr CFC?
wilco: The last little bit is under annual review, that elaborates on the annual review process, that the timer resets on a rule after a survey
trevor: If there is outdated content, would probably need to discuss it with the group
wilco: They would have to take it to the rule authors
maryjom: The liaison can open an issue
wilco: We can put this into a CFC for next week
maryjom: We have been asked by the AG to make a decision policy. I have been drafting up this.
... This codifies our decision process
wilco: I don't think it needs a summary. Would you like to go through it a section at a time? Or would we like a survey?
maryjom: I would have to think about what question to be put on the survey. I will remove the summary section.
... We had one assigned. Levon is assigned
wilco: Do we need a CFC on the lang rule updates?
... We could use our updates process which will be approved next week
... We need to talk to AG about how to deal with editorial changes to these rules
... There is an AG facilitators meeting next week, lets try to get them to pull that up.