Meeting minutes
https://
[New Issue Triage](https://bit.ly/32vX311)
https://
scott: 1.3, and I'll take it
https://
<jamesn> https://
aaron: is the rule about whether you can use aria-roledescription on the explicit role or the computed role?
https://
jamesn: editorial, 1.3, assigning myself
[New PR Triage](https://bit.ly/2Pd8Qyc)
https://
jamesn: I will review that
https://
scott: want ua to not expose descendant links to be set to disabled state. Need help making it clear in the spec: don't do that
jamesn: need 3 reviewers
https://
jamesn: will review and merge
https://
jamesn: any volunteer reviewers
jcraig: I'll review
MarkMccarthy: add me
siri: I can review
https://
jamesn: carolyn is down as a reviewer, need one more
jcraig: add me
https://
jamesn: I'll review. anyone else?
Jemma: I can review
juanita: I can partner with someone to review
jcraig: I can partner
[Meaty topic for next week](https://bit.ly/3v8tUoQ)
jamesn: roledescription on May 6
jamesn: may have to move dataviz part 2 to either next week or 3 weeks time
[Charter](https://raw.githack.com/w3c/aria/charter-2021/charter.html)
<jamesn> https://
jamesn: draft of charter. proposing moving everything except aria to living standard, so AAMs, etc
jamesn: this is what the browsers are doing anyhow
mck: including accname
jamesn: that's my proposal. please look at the draft and discuss
jamesn: the only question is do we do the same thing for aria itself
jamesn: there would still be an editor's draft, and you move something into the main branch when it has tests and implementations
mck: I thought the main branch was the editor's draft and there's a stable branch
jamesn: yes, actually, that's what i meant
jamesn: let's start a discussion thread around the charter and whether or not we should go with living standard for the aria spec
aaron: I think it comes down to what different stakeholders get out of the aria spec
jamesn: there are some organizations that won't use an editor's draft
jamesn: although thy use the HTML spec, and it's a living standard
scott: actually, whatwg is putting out snapshots now to address that problem
aaron: would be nice to know that something is the spec is not going to be removed
jamesn: agreed
mck: agreed
[onboarding?](https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1401)
<Jemma> https://
jamesn: jemma has created an onboarding wiki page
<Jemma> https://
Jemma: I will add to this after JamesC's onboarding session today
mck: wiki pages need some protocol re providing feedback and editing the wiki page
carmacleod_: comment in the issue and then make the change?
[Add role=image as synonym for role=img](https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/1370)
jamesn: need mck to approve
Proposal - Back out new naming mechanisms from 1.3
jamesn: we had 2 new concepts: name from encapsulation, name from legend
jamesn: received feedback from an implementor that this was going to have massive performance implications
aaron: who was that?
jamesn: it was you, aaron
aaron: I don't remember the discussion - was it in some other context?
jamesn: I believe you didn't want to complicate the name computation, because it's already complicated and fragile
aaron: this is when we were going to do role=label? There are already other ways to do this, so this is not needed
aaron: it's just a "nice to have"
mck: we were doing role parity, and this would provide more parity between html and aria in the way you do things
<siri> +1 Matt and Aaron
jamesn: we are at time, will put this on the agenda for next week. need to close on this because we either need to move it forward for aria 1.3 or take it out