<Detlev> AFK

Favorite IRC cheatsheets

<Lauriat> +1 to the Deque one, JF sent it my way years ago and I still use it often

<Jennie> W3C page of IRC commands: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<alastairc> The AG page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDV9uZEryZc2OeM88QLOYu9KCsqaUxspeBqc-foq648/edit

<Detlev> Ok I scribe

New members and topics

<Rachael> scribe: Detlev

Rachael: Any introductions?

Announcements and Reminders

Rachael: Hints on active facilitation

<Rachael> Use "q+ to say" and include your point

<Rachael> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ag-admin/

Rachael: Moving things through quickly where we can

<scribe> New list AG and Silver members to get agreement on issues

<Rachael> If all responses are +1, 0 or no response is provided then the issue will be resolved

<Rachael> If -1s can be quickly resolved via email, we will do so

<Rachael> If -1s require discussion they will be queued up for Tuesday meetings.

A negative 1 will if possible be resolved via email

Seven days to vote on issues

New members and topics

If any issues mail Chairs

Charter discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results

Rachael: Still working out how to do the charter
... what is the greatest risk?

Risk of no final product

the timeline looks that there may be no spect by end of charter period

Rachael: (reading comments)
... after 4 years guidelines may become obsolete
... (Reading Mike Coopers comment)
... (reading Jeanne's comment)
... (Reading Wilco's comment)
... (Reading MariJo's comments)

<AWK> +AWK

Rachael: (reading Bruce's comment)
... (reading Alastair's comment)
... (reading Shadi's comment)
... opening queue

Gregg: No group I know can put together a standard in less than 5 years - will take long for other's too - except informal approaches
... has happened, but those efforts have evaporated
... we are not close to a major change like 3.0 guidelines
... what we need to do is to chart to aswer the basic questions to get beyond uncomfortable choices - need to set deadlines for basic questions

<Jennie> * Can someone please clarify the meaning of AC?

<Chuck> Advisory committee

Chuck: Can we test the water to see how AC would respond to a charter that does not lead to a spec in 2 years

<Chuck> sorry for using abreviation

<Jennie> *Thank you

AWK: between 2.0 and 2.1 there were rechartering without normative deliverable
... we need to show how things have evolved

Shadi: We should be careful not to underestimate informal bodies, example is HTML5
... increasing difficulty of working with current 2.X version
... We are focusing too much on what he AC is going to say, but instead we need to tackle the big questions

Judy: There is no absolute req that deliverables have to be completed within charter period
... WAI has repeatedly clarified what is needed and reflected that in the charter - do it expeditiously, every group gets pressure, must provide advance notice of charter development underway

<Zakim> GN, you wanted to ask which other standards organization might start publishing an accessibility standard

Judy: if there is objection later they may be called out for nit engaging earlier

Gundula: Is there another org working on a digital standard - if so, which on is it?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note a risk I see of losing WCAG 3 participants (whether core contributors, occasional contributors, or stakeholders)

Jeanne: Some have looked at that, this is more speculation right now

Shawn: A risk I want to note is losing WCAG participants, or stakeholders we need for outreach to move in right direction

<Jem> +1 to shawn lauriat

Melanie: As advisory rep, if there is any input you need I am happy to provide it

<bruce_bailey> best AC page i can find is: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AdvisoryCommittee

<Ryladog> I agree with Michael

MichaelC: Would be surprised if we can push something through AC without some deliverable

Risk of final product

Rachael: goal t day is exploring risks

<Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results#xq7

Rachael: (Reading her own comment)
... (reading Mike Gower's comment)
... (Reading Michael Cooper's comment)
... (Reading Jeanne's comment)
... (reading Wilco's comment)
... (Reading MariJo's comment)
... (Reading Bruce's comment)
... (reading Alastair's comment)
... (Reading Shadi's comment)
... (reading Laura's comment)

<Jem> +1 Bruce Bailey

Jennie: Risk is that slow-moving orgs have a longer wait - if organizations can adopted incrementally, it helps larger, slower ones

AC: Of the two survey questions, this seems the les risky one

Bruce: Can we have a survey in IRC for that?

Risk of not pursuing WCAG 3

<Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results#xq3

Rachael: (Reading own comment)
... (Reading Mike Gower's comment)
... (reading Michael Cooper's comment)

<Jem> +1 Michael Cooper

Rachael: (reading Jeanne's comment)

Jeanne: adding concern that other efforts may not be as good as what WG does

Rachael: (reading Alastair's comment)

<alastairc> That was about finalising things before they are ready

Rachael: (Reading MariJo's comment)
... Rachael: (reading Bruce's comment)

Bruce: similar concern as expressed by Jeanne

<Jem> +1 Bruce Bailey

Rachael: (Reading Alastair's comment)
... (Reading Shadi's comment)
... (reading Laura's comment)
... Overall concern is that others may step in

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the earlier mentioned risk from Wilco on question 1 about increased full-blown exemptions

Shadi: Want to reiterate that possible loss of leadership is not only the WCAG decides to abandon 3.o but also if it takes too long

Shawn: All things to question 1 apply - Risk of pushing to full-blown exemptions

<Jem> +1 Greggvan

Gregg: There may be a breach of trust with the COGA community if we just quit

<Lauriat> +1 to Gregg, definitely.

<alastairc> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: drafting straw poll

Please put on priority of risk

<Rachael> DRAFT Straw Poll: Please list the issues in order of risk from lowest risk to highest risk 1- Stopping WCAG3 2 - Committing to something published 3 - Not including something published

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

<Detlev> does it work?

<Detlev> I'm back, sorry

GV: Is #2 committing and failing?

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

<Chuck> bruce: 2 different things. Which risks are more likely vs which risks are more serious. Not the same question.

Bruce: which of the risk is more likely vs. which is most serious!

<Rachael> DRAFT Straw Poll: Please list the issues in order of risk from most dangerous risk A- Stopping WCAG3, B - Committing to a final product published incharter, C - Not including to a final product published in charter

<Chuck> GV: You need to tell us which one we are answering. Most dangerous or most likely.

<Chuck> Jemma: #3 option. That means just skipping WCAG 2.2? What does #3 mean?

Gemma: not putting in something published - what des that mean?

<Chuck> Rachael: <reads options>

Lokking at most dangerous risks first

Gregg: was going to suggest that there van be a 2.2 deliverable...

<Rachael> scribe: Detlev

<Rachael> DRAFT Straw Poll: Please list the issues in order of risk from most dangerous risk A- Stopping WCAG3, B - Committing to a final product published incharter, C - Not including to a final product published in charter

<Jem> A, C, B

<Chuck> A, C, B

<ToddL> A, C, B

<Lauriat> A, C, B

<GreggVan> ACB

<Ryladog> A, B, C

<GN015> A, B, C

<mbgower> A, B, C

<Rachael> ABC

<AWK> ABC

<sarahhorton> A, C, B

Can't answer that (Detlev)

<bruce_bailey> C A B

<ShawnT> A, C, B

<JakeAbma> ABC

<alastairc> A, B, C, but I'm assuming committing and not delivering is the risk?

<laura> A, C, B

<Francis_Storr> A, C, B

<Jennie> A, B, C

<SuzanneTaylor> A, B, C

<MelanieP> ABC

<kirkwood> A,B,C

<alastairc> So we all agree on A

<Chuck> ACB and ABC are the most selected.

Rachael: Not continuing with WCAG 3 is a bad option - do all agree? Bruce?

Bruce: Read C as not attempting to put a final product out

Gregg: asking Bruce what he meant?

Bruce: difficult to do this on the fly

Rachael: So Bruce agrees
... Committing to a final product vs. putting something in and have difficulty changing it

<Jem> does B option include "failure" or "success"?

<Jem> or neutral...

Gregg: The risk is not from AC but from constituents- if you promise something in a timeframe and then not deliver is bad - we should not set expectations we cannot meet

<Jem> which is only about "commitment..

<Rachael> Risks of Committing to something in the charter: 1) Committing to something and not making it (damage to reputation) 2) Committing to something and needing to change it

Gregg: we should promise the basic outline and answers to the basic questions

Katie: One more option - just lay it out(?)
... the idea to come out with stuff quickly (agile) was not workable - so this can be communicated

<MelanieP> +1 to Katie

Katie: this is why we tried, this is why it did not work - mistakes happen

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say It seems the choice is between committing to publishing *something* (but not final product), vs *not* committing to publishing something in this

Katie: we should be able to publish by the met charter

<shadi> +1 to Katie

AC: Moving past risk to choices. either publishing a subsequent, or persuading people that it's nit done in a 2 year charter period

AC correction Detev: publishing a subset

<Ryladog> Conformance

AC: If we want to publish a subset, what would that be? that is what Q 4 is about

Chuck: One things seems to be in agreement: not abandoning WCAG 3

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: We will continue WCAG 3

<sarahhorton> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<alastairc> +!

<Jem> +1

0

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Jennie> +1

<JakeAbma> 0

<MichaelC> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Caryn> +1

<Rachael> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<GN015> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Chuck> detlev: I feel dispirited related to the process. So many things are happening and so little is coming in line I have this feeling that it's not leading anywhere. In a sense I wish we could carry on with 2.anything and clear up wcag 2, more manageable rather than going in a different direction.

<Chuck> detlev: I get that there are constituents that want and need a wcag 3.

<Wilco__> +1 to Detlev

<bruce_bailey> +1 to @Detlev concern that wcag2.x still needs work

<laura> +1 to Detlev

<Chuck> +1 to the concerns, I'm still a +1.

Jake: What bothers me: we have a list of requirements, we understand where it comes from, bu we have talking in circles about new measurements - unsure if it will be possible to follow all these requirements, maybe it will turn out not to be possible
... not sure if we make it, and at what point can we decide whether it is possilbe

Gregg: It is unthinkable to go forward with 3, but it is impossible to get ahead without reckoning with reality. None of the issues have been resolved.

Things like testability - we cannot wish these things to go away

Gregg: we need to sit down to realize the limits, discuss what is doable

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think that is effectively the path forward- incorporate 3 stuff into 2.3 as next step

Gregg: we may launch into another 2 years with head in cloud

MGower: Several things have been identified in the surveys: clearer languages, moe examples, incorporate that into 3, so this can become a deliverable of WCAG 3

<Jem> +1 Mike Gower

Katie: Remember the meeting on conformance for WCAG 2 - incredible relief then. We cannot provide something half-baked
... we need to focus - have things that are testable today, others that are not - when they become testable in the future, they can be added

scribe change? Pleas..

Katie: If we sit down at a table, we can get decisions made

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to speak about "it's not possible". and to say agree with perspective of zeros, and we have consensus

<Jem> scribe:Jemma

<Rachael> Scribe: Jem

<alastairc> scribe: Jem

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask how do you have a standard that is not testable?

Chuck: all the consensus is valauable.

<ToddL> +1 Chuck

<Wilco__> +1 Gregg

<Wilco__> Accessibility is complicated. It just is.

GreggVan: another goal is how to deal with not testable.

<Ryladog> YES the FIRST

GreggVan: we want to adopt the law, it should be testable.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that we can't (with backwards compatibility) seriously change 2.x, an interim step would need to be on the way to "WCAG 3".

<Chuck> draft RESOLUTION: We will continue WCAG 3

RESOLUTION: Continue working on WCAG 3

alastairc: there will be interim steps and we may be able to roll over wcag 2 to wcag 3

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/results#xq8

4. Minimum Scope of Guidance

question is "What is the best minimum scope for publishing guidance (outcomes, methods, and support materials) that would be acceptable to publish?

Another way to ask this is what would an acceptable published Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for the guidance segment? This question is not asking what we will start with but only trying to figure out if and how we can break down the guidance"

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach

Rachael: please take time to answer to the question.

bruce: comment colum is cut off in wide screen.

Rachael: we can try to make it more readable.
... conclusion of WCAG 3 discussion

WCAG 2.2 Visual Controls https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results

What counts as a visible indicator?

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-visible-controls/results#xq19

alastairc: this is tricky one. ;-)

<Rachael> example document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cn9SvuOiu_m-phcyK5IdtipNzyoM2pkcCHbnWfcqsNc/edit#heading=h.e5ykt7vvfe44n

alastairc: 10 people answered
... menu has the highgest number of answers.

<AWK> (there was no squarespace example)

alastairc: david used "primary function" concept for the discussion

Rachael: there is a potential confusion..
... about visual control.

<mbgower> I passed many because of meeting multi step

alastairc: we can go through the responses to see whether there is any helpful concepts.
... gundual's example was about wordpress menu

gundula: I took the question as "Is there a visible indicator that there are further controls available?" and answered to the questions.

<alastairc> AWK - sorry the label for example 2 disappeared somehow

oliver: "Many of the examples "indicate" the availability by additional content on hover. Is it an indication? To me it looks like an already executed action if viewing from the perspective of a comprehensive, focus and touch-based approach (focusable via a keyboard, or a remote control of a smartTV)."
... "Relocating focus is not allowed on hover and IMHO contradicts WCAG 'onFocus' and 'onInput'."

wilco: first, I found these are really difficult.
... I am used to github avatar being interactive so on.. basically I used my experiences to answer to the questions.

Rachael: sharing the experience of using breakroom numbering as the control. it was really hard to find and use that control to mange the breakroom.

<kirkwood> relying on memory there. … failure?

alastairc: john lewis menus is a horizontal menu and each menu has dropbox items while wordpress has vertical menu
... "To be clear, I don't think a lack of visible indicator in all these cases is problematic, but I can't see a good rational for accepting many of them as having visible indicators."

bruce's response about ppt file case.

alastair: row in the table in ppt is the visual indicator
... it seems multimedia thumb nail is the good enough for you?

sarahhorton:

based on user rearch, users' recongition, design affordance, design convention and so on, I chose the answers.

multimedia button is the example for that.

mgower: convention is based on user's own experiences
... as gundunla mentioned, we have to consider the indivisuality. this SC does not work.

sarahhorton: follow up on Mgower's comment

<mbgower> The only one the respondents could agree on was Squarespace

sarahhorton: I think this is still solid and important SC based on the previous proposal

alastairc: dependance on convention and user expecation would not work as the SC.

<mbgower> I did the latter. I would have failed more

<Fazio> thats against COGA guidance

rachael: chair hat off, I think this is important SC to be added from COGA.
... if this will be taken out, I would like to get suggestion from COGA .

sarahhorton: context is the info which reveals info to users like the case in canvas.
... there is a path forward for this SC.

<GN015> sorry, I need to step out.

sarahhorton: we are here to resolve access barriers.

<Rachael> s/...if. /...This would fit a test case test type very well but if

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to argue for lesser requirement that has better inter-rater reliability

<bruce_bailey> We have had other SC were we settle for a lesser requirement than we would like -- in order to have something rather than nothing

GreggVan: I want to make sure that 1)what is the visual control, 2)what is convention for the control. I am concerned about not identifiable, and not accessible.

awk: my response to Sarah. I agree with Sarah that we need something but I am concerend that how to evaluate those.

<bruce_bailey> In this case, I think we would be better with a softer requirement but one that has good potential for inter-rater reliability

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say it can be a significant issue, but we need some level of consistency

awk: it would be challenging how to evaluate those if it is based on user context.

alastairc: sufficent context, efficient ...are needed for the successful SC.

<sarahhorton> This is the working document from last year, might be useful: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v9VN9JN7fWIv1fIlBNXRhibMnRavn0M2Bx6AohtZ_jc/edit#heading=h.j8p0w0bugajb

<kirkwood> if not visible an explanation of how it works a pass?

alastairc: ambiguity for video can be go away.
... it raise another issue that some controls are "expected" but not other controls in thumnail list (adding queue..)

sarahhorton: some of the emails John Avilas sent are helpful.

<kirkwood> +1 to Sarah

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that knowing something is actionable is based on context & knowledge

sarahhorton: whether it is "actionable", what pops up is another discussion, or "interactive".

alastairc: it is hard to put those concepts into the SC.

sarahhorton: there were other similar challenge in other SC, not only this viscual contral SC.

poornima: my suggestion is making them as two

mutlimedia is the essential control case.

the other non essential example is "share" button

<mbgower> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfEgRs99CBc9vVHhCNowwj07v6UDGb-2QaB9IlfBZ5A/edit?usp=sharing

<Zakim> kirkwood, you wanted to say an explanation of how the ui can work, no?

scribe: categorizing the controls whether it can be hinden or not.

mbgower: I tried to constrain the language.
... with "persistently" visible and with three bullets
... another challegne is dynamic user interface, which is not "persistent"

john: regarding that point, there is "hover" action problem.
... at least show question mark so that it is persistent and show presense.

katie: regarding video control,

caption and transcript are showing persistently visisble.

scribe: I am wondering about video control of play, pause..

bruce: the anwer is that those are different.

<mbgower> Just put in wording based ONLY on hover in the same document (at the bottom)

<mbgower> Where hover is the only means of exposing user interface components: The same functionality is available through a component on the same page, or on a different step in a multi-step process, without requiring pointer hover to make it visible; A mechanism is available to make the components persistently visible; Hiding the visual indicator is essential.

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Continue refining 2) Start discussion to remove it from WCAG 2.2 and check in with COGA 3) Move to AAA and check in with COGA

alastairc: michale's suggestion for "hover" only for triple A and go back to COGA to hear feedabck.

<kirkwood> 1

<kirkwood> oops

<mbgower> Check in with COGA, regardless

<Poornima_> 1

<AWK> 2-3

bruce: we can also add this double AA in addition.

<Ryladog> 1 or 4

<SuzanneTaylor> 4

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest (4)

chuck: we can scale back again like bruce suggested.

mbgower: it is just "hover" for failure and passing other examples.
... it is worthwhile to check with COGA.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask how we'd have something (useful) that is easy to pass?

mbgower: make hover be essential.

<Detlev> would that be covered by 2.1.1

alastairc: it is difficult to think "easier version" because it is based on user context.

<kirkwood> correct

<mbgower> That's because of 3.0/2.2 division of effort

<alastairc> mbgower - it does leave a gap where things are also available from focus

wilco: it is late to discuss and it will pose risk to the chartering.

<mbgower> You would click

sarahhorton: with the hover, it would not require for mega menu not to address this SC?

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Continue refining 2) Consider removing it from WCAG 2.2 and check in with COGA 3) Consider moving to AAA and check in with COGA 3) Harder AAA and an easy to pas AA and check in with COGA

mbgwoer: mega menu can add ...??

<Ryladog> 3

<Chuck> straw poll: 1) Continue refining 2) Consider removing it from WCAG 2.2 and check in with COGA 3) Consider moving to AAA and check in with COGA 4) Harder AAA and an easy to pass AA and check in with COGA

<sarahhorton> 1

<SuzanneTaylor> 4

<alastairc> 2 or 3

<Ryladog> 4

<Detlev> 2

<SLouraine> 2

<MelanieP> 3, 2

<Wilco__> 3

<Rachael> 3, 2 (as sad as it makes me)

<JakeAbma> 2

<bruce_bailey> 4 3 1 2

<AWK> hard straw poll to parse!

<kirkwood> 1 or 4

<mbgower> 1, 3, 4

<ShawnT> 4

<Caryn> 1 or 4

<Poornima_> 1 or 4

<OliverK> 1 or 4

<Detlev> 3 also ok

<AWK> All but 1

<ToddL> 2, 3

<mbgower> I guess 2 at the end to be 1,3,4,2

Rachael: Chairs, do you want to go to COGA and come back with feedback?

alastairc: prefer not to be 1.

<mbgower> Are we at risk? When would we be at risk?

wilco: can I get the answer for charger question?

Rachael: what is cut off date for finished text?

michaelcooper: July

alastairc: I perfer we lock down this sc 3weeks.

<Wilco__> for me it rules out creating a new SC

<mbgower> I'd say we have a week to get a response from COGA

alastairc: page locator discussioin

WCAG 2.2 Page break break locatorss https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/results

SC2.4.13 Page break locators technique #1226

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1226

Are CSS break-before/after indicators page break locators? #2259

<Rachael> The current defintion of page-break-locators (agreed in Dec) is: programmatically determinable destination markers that are arranged in a meaningful sequence to represent a locator serving the same purpose as page breaks in a printed document.

<alastairc> "programmatically determinable destination markers that represent page breaks in an alternative version of the document."

<mbgower> refresh

<mbgower> refresh survey please. forgot to hit 'submit earlier'

bruce: "I am strongly of the opinion that the definition should include the word "print" or "hard copy." E.g.:

programmatically determinable destination markers that represent page breaks in a paper alternative version of the document

Has a DAISY SME affirmed this change?"

bruce: agree with adjustment
... if it is ok with epub chairs, I am fine with it.

<ToddL> +1

wilco: I don't understand why this makes difference. why we should write the sc for epub? it should be tech agnostic.

alastairc: if you can stay, we can talk more.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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/note on progress/notice of charter development underway/
Succeeded: s/Wagt/Want/
Succeeded: s/denies/decides/
Succeeded: s/just ay it out/just lay it out/
Succeeded: s/confusion/control/
Succeeded: s/questiosn/questions/
Succeeded: s/difficulty/difficult/
FAILED: s/...if. /...This would fit a test case test type very well but if/
Succeeded: s/think would be better/think we would be better/
Succeeded: s/suggesion/suggestion/
Succeeded: s/too late/late/
Succeeded: s/an easy to pas/an easy to pass/
Succeeded: s/the contents/this sc/
Succeeded: s/locator/break locators/
Default Present: Detlev, shadi, alastairc, Jennie, Fazio, Jeanne, JakeAbma, Lauriat, Wilco__, bruce_bailey, GreggVan, sarahhorton, Caryn, MelanieP, Chuck, JaeunJemmaKu, kirkwood, MichaelC, AWK, Francis_Storr, Jen_G, SuzanneTaylor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, ShawnT, ToddL, !, Jen_G_, Laura_Carlson, Poornima_, OliverK
Present: Detlev, shadi, alastairc, Jennie, Fazio, Jeanne, JakeAbma, Lauriat, Wilco__, bruce_bailey, GreggVan, sarahhorton, Caryn, MelanieP, Chuck, JaeunJemmaKu, kirkwood, MichaelC, AWK, Francis_Storr, Jen_G, SuzanneTaylor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, ShawnT, ToddL, !, Jen_G_, Laura_Carlson, Poornima_, OliverK
Regrets: Nicaise, Jaunita
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: Jemma
Found Scribe: Jem
Found Scribe: Jem
Inferring ScribeNick: Jem
Scribes: Detlev, Chuck, Jemma, Jem
ScribeNicks: Detlev, Chuck, Jem

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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.)