<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2023-02-14
<Jay_Mullen> Can you unmute me so I can ask question :)
<Jay_Mullen> Just wanted to confirm how I can pay for the food for CSUN W3C Sync
<Jay_Mullen> I bene on vacation last 2 weeks
<Jay_Mullen> got it
<ChrisLoiselle> I will follow along on IRC and on zoom today but unable to talk or scribe.
<Jennie_Delisi> scribe: Jennie_Delisi
Chuck: Hello. We will start in 2 minutes.
<Rachael> present
Chuck: Welcome. We have
transcripts on.
... If you can scribe for the 2nd hour it would help.
... Anyone on the call that would like to introduce themselves
or have a new role?
Cameron: I am a software engineer with Asana.
<Rachael> Welcome
Chuck: Welcome
... Anybody else?
<dbjorge> Welcome, Cameron!
Chuck: Any topics you would like
to add to the list for future agendas?
...Announcements: we are planning CSUN.
... We have a sponsor.
... How early is everyone attending or attending remotely
starting the call?
... Comfortable attending
Chuck: Can you let us know in notes or send an email.
Rachael: This will be a hybrid meeting so we would like to start as early as possible.
<ckundo> hi folks, Cameron Cundiff here! I'm a software engineer on the accessibility team at Asana. So glad to be here
<jeanne> I can start anytime. I'm on East Coast
Rachael: If you are physically present, what would work as a start time.
<JenStrickland> I'll be attending physically. Whatever start time you need I'll make happen.
Chuck: Thank you to those adding
comments in IRC.
... Any other announcements?
Chuck: This lists the milestones for February through September.
Rachael: We are trying to plan
out in 6 month chunks and tell you. These are not formally
published.
... Regarding WCAG 3
... (reads from the document)
... The working group will approve the content
... An updated test section
... Ideally 2 guidelines if achievable
... Ideally 1 outcome to breadth all the way
... Then, we need to evaluate the draft against core
questions
... Those we have captured in the conversations from the last
year
... A lot of issues have been addressed through
conversations
... Then we are meeting with regulators
... Those that provided comments and regulators, talking about
the approaches
... We want world-wide representation
... As we go into the 2 examples (#7) - understanding what
works, what needs changes
... This is a lot of work, and we will be asking for a lot of
engagement
<scribe> ...(continues reading from the document)
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: The goal is really ambitious.
Chuck: If there are questions, please let us know
Bruce_Bailey: I think we need to be careful with the word formal
<AWK> +AWK
Chuck: Edited
... Any other questions?
Chuck: 1st question was regarding
editorial.
... We are just addressing the editorial asynchronously - we
will not discuss in detail in this call
... We will focus on the substantive ones
... If you have editorial concerns, there will be more
opportunities. ...#2: conformance scoring
options
... Themes will be reviewed at a high level, before
details.
... Using percentages to determine silver and gold
... How critical issues fit in
... Outcomes vs success criteria
... Comparing the options
... For those that made comments, we may not talk about them in
totality
... We may miss out on some comments
... This is not the 1st time we will go through this - we will
have more surveys
... If you don't feel your comment is addressed here, you can
add them in
Chuck: Andrew made some comments
(reads his comments)
... Andrew - do you have additional comments?
... (reads Jonathan Avila's comment)
... (reads Mary Jo's comments related to percentages)
... (reads Laura's comment)
... (reads Wilco's comments)
... There were concerns expressed regarding percentages.
... Questioning how is this going to work?
Wilco: The question is
equity.
... If you get to choose, you will choose the easy one - human
nature and financially
... It seems this will link to inequitable results.
Rachael: I agree with Wilco and
others.
... Right now bronze is 100%
... We are at least ensuring a certain level
... The next option is to specify each outcome as bronze,
silver, or gold
Wendyreid: As the proposer of the approach, maybe it wasn't clear.
<jeanne> -1 for bronze, silver, gold outcomes.
Wendyreid: My intention was to
specifically define each tier of criteria
...Example: bronze must pass the test.
... We could select criteria that cover an equitable
range.
... For silver and gold - I am open to discussing
... It could be a silver list, a gold list.
... I thought bronze would essentially mean A and AA
... AAA being silver and gold with additional criteria mixed
in
... I thought this would add flexibility for certain platforms,
or products
... I wanted to add a strong baseline.
... For those that want to go above and beyond, here's how to
do it.
Detlev: I have seen this in light
of the current WCAG structure
... For the bronze level you must assign all those assigned to
that level
<Rachael> exemplary I think
Detlev: If you have exceptional protocols - you are better than what is needed for bronze
<Chuck> I think exemplary
Detlev: There could be a higher
measurement
... It might be good to have silver at some level that is
higher than pass
... There is no way you could game the system
... On the gold level, you could add things that are beyond
those outcomes specified
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that our earlier proposal of having a number of buckets of disability categories and we could require a number for each bucket
Jeanne: That was something that
came out of the COGA research long ago
... That had a negative impact on equity
... I don't want to proceed in that direction as the only thing
that is going to work
... You would have to select so carefully to get equity
... What we did propose that had traction for a long time
... (the overall proposal was discarded only)
... Is that silver and gold required specific disability
buckets to ensure that the effort being done was equitable
across disability categories
dbjorge: Agreeing with Wilco's
concerns
... I know that a lot of legal people are happy in general with
adding flexibility
... I don't think we need to take an option to make it
exploratory, but I would like to see one option that is
not
... allowing a pick and choose
... Anything along the lines that each outcome specifies what
its bronze, silver, and gold is
... Or something like the critical issues reviewed
previously
... Maybe something combining what we just heard from Jeanne in
terms of bucketization
... As long as there is at least one option that we can keep
pursuing that meets those needs
Chuck: OK, I am summarizing
... 1. The possibility of identifying which outcomes are
bronze, silver, gold - there were some concerns
... 2. Bucketizing based on the disability types
Wilco: I want to ask Jeanne - are
you saying the challenge with saying this is that we might get
it wrong
... and not have an equitable standard because we got it
wrong?
... How is that addressed by having organizations able to
choose for themselves?
<Detlev> +1 to Wilco's concern
Jeanne: (chuckling) good
point
... I'm going to think about this more
... I am trying to adapt the earlier proposal to this
structure
... I think Wilco has a good point and I need time to think
about it.
... It is an important question to capture.
<alastairc> Have we considered having methods at different levels rather than outcomes? I wonder if that would be better than the higher level outcomes.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to share how loose is present federal 6-month reporting on number of pages and percent
Bruce: The federal government in the US has agencies reporting web accessibility metrics
<Wilco> +1 Yeah I don't know the answer either. It feels like a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition
Bruce: The data is not public
facing, but how feds count is (see link)
... It is loose
... this has been the reporting every six months for a few
years, but new reporting is in flux
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to highlight Alastair's comments
<bruce_bailey> https://www.section508.gov/manage/reporting/questions/#part-3-website-compliance-metrics
Chuck: (read's Alastair's comment)
Alastair: I wonder if you almost have bronze methods that are minimal, but as you work up you are moving towards better quality outcomes?
<wendyreid> +1 to Alastair
Chuck: Which is a 3rd
possibility
... For the chairs - we have identified 3 possible ideas - is
that what we are looking to explore?
Wilco: 1 direction I have heard -
how do we build this standard in a way that we can update
it?
... If we figure out something is wrong, we need a way to
change it
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer chuck
Wilco: This is something we need to tackle anyway.
Rachael: I agree we are gathering
ideas.
... I think this initial conversation is how do we adjust this?
What should we be looking at?
... We can write those up and bring to the group. And we can do
a straw poll.
Wendy: I am agreeing with those
before me. I think we need a couple of tests of both
conformance models.
... That helped me write this up - having examples of how both
models would apply.
... Something like color contrast, or image description.
<Lauriat> +1 to Wendy on testing, definitely
<Rachael> draft straw poll: 1) Continue with percentages 2) assigning outcomes or methods to different levels 3) Creating groups at each level and apply percentages to each group
Wendy: This helps understand how they would apply
Chuck: straw poll: 1) Continue with percentages 2) assigning outcomes or methods to different levels 3) Creating groups at each level and apply percentages to each group
Wilco: It may be easiest to have
a model where every model gets
... its own set of outcomes
<Rachael> draft straw poll: 1) Continue with percentages 2) assigning outcomes to different levels 3) assign methods to different levels 3) Creating groups at each level and apply percentages to each group
Chuck: as an option 4?
Rachael: I broke one apart, and thing Wilco's is the same as #2
Chuck: This is not a resolution
<JenStrickland> 2
Chuck: (reads the straw poll)
<alastairc> Order of preference: 3a, 1, 3b
<Detlev> strongly leaning to 2
<Wilco> 2, 3, 4, 1 (don't know how 4 could work with informative v normative)
Chuck: Vote on all you think have potential
<Jay_Mullen> 2,3
<dbjorge> 3, 4
<jeanne> 4, 3, 1
<Rachael> Straw poll: 1) Continue with percentages 2) assigning outcomes to different levels 3) assign methods to different levels 4) Creating groups at each level and apply percentages to each group
<SuzanneTaylor> leaning toward 2 or 3
<Makoto> 2, 3
Chuck: The last 3 is really 4
<Azlan> 2,3
<sarahhorton> 3, 2
<Ben_Tillyer> 3,2
<wendyreid> 3, 4, 2
<Chuck> straw poll: 1) Continue with percentages 2) assigning outcomes to different levels 3) assign methods to different levels 4) Creating groups at each level and apply percentages to each group
<Lauriat> 4, 3, 1
<Jay_Mullen> Correction, 2,4
<bruce_bailey> 4 3 2 1 -- not a fan of %
<SuzanneTaylor> leaning toward 2, 3, 4
<kirkwood> 3
<Rachael> 3, 4, 2, 1
<laura> 2, 3
<jaunita_george> 3
<GN015> 1, 2
Rachael: I think we can aggregate and bring back to the next meeting
Chuck: Yes
Chuck: (reads Dan's comment)
<JenStrickland> One thing am most interested in in #2 is the opportunity to provide greater equity in the levels, addressing some of the issues around the quantitative tests that seemed to be favored in WCAG 2.
<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to avoiding use of "best practice"
Chuck: Critical issues is coming
up.
... We have thoughts that critical issues are important, but
how they work in a conformance model is something that is open
to discussion
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask that the people proposing the two options consider how it fits
Jeanne: I think a different group
worked on critical issues, and put it into the document.
... The 2 people spearheading the overall conformance options
had the level of details to fit that into their proposal
... I would like to suggest that we ask Wendy and Greg (and
whoever else wants to contribute) to see how this fits
Rachael: I think over time we
will evolve the proposals into group proposals
... I am hesitant to keep assigning it back to a single
person
<jeanne> +1 for making them group proposals
Rachael: And expand to anyone providing comments
Chuck: Wendy asks subgroup on conformance?
Rachael: Maybe. I would like to keep it in this group as much as possible, then that makes sense
<jeanne> I will volunteer to work on some ideas.
<Chuck> +1
Alastair: the update that Jeanne was suggesting
Wendy: I don't want to hold the
main group up while we try to figure this out.
... I am happy to do it on my own, but it would be very helpful
to get people like Jeanne and Wilco to help
... We could maybe flesh these out, then report back to the
group
Chuck: I do think we have momentum.
<sarahhorton> should pick up on work from issue severity
Chuck: I don't think we need a resolution for that
Rachael: the comment that came in
is how do we handle it
... One option: each outcome or method is set at a specific
scope
... Pass / fail would be set
... Making sure we have the editor's note
<Chuck> +1 to editors note at this time
Rachael: If you think we need more than that, please jump in
<Rachael> The editor's note is under 4.1.5 Scoring and states "Writing sample outcomes to explore each option and how to handle aggregating scores"
Chuck: (reads Gundala's comment)
Detlev: (summarizing his
comments)
... If we are picking different names - is there a good reason
to do that?
... I wonder if the name change is needed at all? May be best
to stick with those that have been in use a long time
... Having some level of rating below
... I prefer to stick to any name that still fits, and still
works
... My question is: where is the difference?
<laura> +1 to Detlev
Jeanne: The original architecture
was significantly different from WCAG 2
... These 2 options/proposals have brought them much closer to
WCAG 2
... Your point is very valid
... If we end up with a proposal where they are very much the
same as WCAG 2 then I agree we should use the same names
... I hope we will continue to have original and creative
thought to identify the problems with using the WCAG 2 success
criteria
... And that we get far enough away from the WCAG 2
architecture so we end up needing a different name
... There are problems with the success criteria that we are
trying to solve.
... I hope we will continue to go in a direction of looking at
a different architecture
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that I feel that this addresses plain language concerns
Jeanne: that solves the problems we know are present
Chuck: (chair hat off) 1 thing
about the terminology, for me, the success criteria as an
example of what we called a thing
... was more of a scientific and procedural thing
... Outcome seems more plain language
Chuck: The current terminology seems to address the desire for more plain language than describing the output we are trying to produce
<Detlev> but substantively the same?
Rachael: This is our document
from TPAC
... It describes the architecture
... I want to bring that back
... (chair hat off) I like sticking with outcomes and if we
feel we need to change to SC, doing that at the end
<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to changing names at the end
Rachael: This helps me keep these separate
Detlev: The scientific feeling of success criteria. Pass fail always gave that feeling
<dbjorge> +1 to changing names based on option we choose. Option 2 from the straw poll earlier ("each outcome is bronze/silver/gold") in particular feels more like a renaming of "each SC is A/AA/AAA" than the other options.
Detlev: In practice we know that
you have to draw a line somewhere ...Example: some
regions that don't have enough mark up
... For me the important thing is to define the "just good
enough" thing
... Then what is really good
... I agree with keeping outcomes for now
Chuck: Anyone else have thoughts
?
Chuck: There were a few comments
made in the survey results saying there are 2 options, and are
2 enough?
... Others about specific comparisons of options
... (reads Wilco's response)
<Detlev> +1 to wilco's comment
<laura> +1 to wilco's comment
Chuck: (reads Daniel's comment)
<Rachael> I added an editor's note as well: We are exploring two approaches to scoring and levels which are labeled Option 1 and Option 2. We continue to test these approaches and others for validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, and complexity. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve them to better meet these criteria.The working group plans to select or even replace these options in late 2023 based on feedback, prototyping, and testing.
<dbjorge> we went through my comment already, there's nothing new there on this new topic I don't think
<bruce_bailey> +1 to wilcos comment
<Detlev> +1 to that too
Dan: I think my comment has been addressed in earlier discussion
Chuck: (reads Chaals' comment)
Rachael: I pasted in an editor's
note
... (I added an editor's note as well: We are exploring two
approaches to scoring and levels which are labeled Option 1 and
Option 2. We continue to test these approaches and others for
validity, reliability, sensitivity, adequacy, and complexity.
We welcome suggestions on ways to improve them to better meet
these criteria.The working group plans to select or even
replace these options in late 2023 based on feedback,
prototyping, and tes[CUT]
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1 to editorial note
Chuck: for comments - are you happy with the editor's note?
Wilco: I don't know that it
addresses the concerns here
... If the group feels this is a direction we should explore
then we should do that. I don't have a better suggestion.
Chuck: I don't think we need a resolution.
Rachael: I agree
Chuck: we have a few minutes
before the WCAG 2 section of the call
... Anyone's comments that were not discussed that you feel
should be raised?
Gundala: The gold level in the current approach does not imply the silver level
<Chuck> +1
Gundala: I feel the level should imply the level before
Rachael: the option 2 had 50% of outcomes in silver. Gold had 75%
<Rachael> 75% of outcomes pass score Exemplary (25% more than Silver).
Rachael: I added "25% more than silver" - does that address it?
Gundala: I think it was not in
the percentage but the full text
... In gold it references best practices
Rachael: if you compare the options, they build upon each other
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change
<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey
Laura Carlson: can we add equity to note ?
<jeanne> +1 to adding equity to the list of what is evaluated
Chuck +1 and Rachael agrees, looking for best location
Rachael: Equity is mentioned in
one of the Editorial Notes...
... but agree with adding under levels as well
Chuck: Switching to WCAG 2.2 items, taking a bit out of order, to tackle quicker survey items
<Chuck> propose RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2735 to address issue 2688
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq34
subtle grammar issue
<dbjorge> "This questionnaire is open from 2023-02-09 to 2023-02-14."
Alastair: we had agreement , but this is a minor editorial change (switch word order of two days)
Wilco: Asks for clarification on survey cycle ?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2735 to address issue 2688
Alastair: Getting through surveys quickly, but not bottle net is formatting issues as PRs so they are in shape enough for survey
<alastairc> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<Detlev> +1
<laura> +1
<Rachael> +1
<joweismantel> +1
Alastair: please consider attending Friday meeting or volunteering on open issues
<dbjorge> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Azlan> +1
<Makoto> +1
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<GN015> +0 I am no native speaker
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2735 to address issue 2688
<alastairc> AWK - does it need an erratumraised on a not-yet published SC?
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq36
5. Dragging Movements needs some attention #1917
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2999 to address issue 1917
<laura> +1
Chuck: In survey , all agreed
<alastairc> +1 (informative updates)
<dbjorge> +1
<Chuck> +1
<joweismantel> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<Azlan> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Makoto> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2999 to address issue 1917
Chuck, returning to top of survey for questions which will need more discussion
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq33
Chuck: 3 agrees, one suggestion
Alastair: agree with Daniel edits, so propose we accept
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2998 to address issue 2414
<mbgower> +1
<dbjorge> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Ben_Tillyer> Would it be possible to summarise Daniel's edits, cannot access github at the moment?
<Ben_Tillyer> Otherwise i'll vote 0
Alastair: we should be consistent with e.g. versus for example
Mike Gower: This is coga issue, so I tried writing out.
<laura> +1
<Ben_Tillyer> Thanks
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<Azlan> +1
Alastair: Daniel corrected title, added comma, several small useful edits
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2998 to address issue 2414
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq38
Alastair: This was another small
edit prompted by feedback from Jake, derived from phrasing
changes
... so prose now better matches exceptions as in CR
Dan Bjorge: Most of my comments in survey are with related issues, not necessary this survey. I made some editorial suggestions.
<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3012/files
<alastairc> It is assessed <em>separately</em> from a target to each other nearby target;
Alastair: Most of Dans edits improvements , but had a question about one of the...
<alastairc> It is assessed from a target to <em>each</em> other nearby target;
<Zakim> dbjorge, you wanted to agree that that's fine
Alastair: target separate from target, so I changed that edit
bruce: from survey, request for
ID on headers...
... middle figure failing is odd
<alastairc> Suggested addition: The ability to select the central option is reduced in the second version, it is smaller (therefore harder to successfully hit) and there is little spacing around the target. In the third version the centre target is still harder to hit, but it is less likely that you'd hit a neighbouring target.
<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/Issue2431-target-size/understanding/22/target-size-minimum.html
alastair: Yes, ID will be added
when published.
... Bruce asked for some rational as to why middle 5 buttons
fails, even though sizing is exactly the same except for middle
button of five...
... the right most figure spaces spreads out, so that makes
sense.
... there is a rational
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on Bruce's comments
<Chuck> bruce_bailey: I'm not sure if it's in IRC, the sentence that it's a bit of an artifact would be honest and we should include.
Chuck reads Mike G comments, I am not seeing what I though was current language for target offset...
scribe: I thought we had language so we did not need "overlap"
<alastairc> The measure for target offset works intuitively for most cases, but in some cases, at small sizes, it can cause additional spacing to be required.
Mike Gower: I am seeing overlap is other build, so I don't think we have most recent edits.
Dan Bjorge: It is possible to have notion of overlap, because of how offset is calculated, so I recommend retaining.
Wilco: I am feeling out of loop again , as I do not recall discussion recently.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say when did "overlap" come into the normative text?
Alastair: Last detailed conversation was in December, but that might confusion with bullets and word overlap.
<Wilco> +1 Mike...
Mike Gower: I am not remember overlap either, and I don't think we need it, and it seems like it could be confusing.
Alastair: There could be an additional PR yet to merge, but there was some significant conversation for Understanding and we did conclude that overlap was important for clarity.
<dbjorge> do agree with Mike's point that that the PR is missing the updated target offset definition
<mbgower> Please
Wilco: Can we have a little more time on this one or do we have to decide today?
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3012 to address issues 2431, 2429 and 2432.
Alastair: We do still have a little time for editorials. There are two things going on, merges from December and PRs with phrasing which we have not quite finalized.
Chuck: Can we sort out a resolution?
Alastair: We can sort out the overlap editorial bits
Chuck: So I think we can have a resolution that captures some of this.
MikeG: There is differences in target offset definitions from the few recent versions
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3012 to address issues 2431, 2429 and 2432.
<alastairc> +1
<Chuck> +1
Alastair: Preview bit in definition is not correct, but that is only because preview does not build the same as ED version.
<Rachael> +1
<Detlev> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<laura> +1
<dbjorge> +1
<Wilco> 0? I'm not sure how to vote
<joweismantel> +1
<mbgower> 0 me too
Alsatair: We are only looking at Understanding with this PR
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3012 to address issues 2431, 2429 and 2432.
<mbgower> If this is aligning the Understanding document with the normative text, that's fine. But I want to point out that you ARE introduce "overlap" in the normative text in the Understanding document
Chuck quizes Alastair and Mike and Wilco if they believe they can get aligned, and all agree.
<alastairc> I've been working up from the oldest issues so far.
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq35
G218 has been updated to include an extra step specific to the AAA version in PR 2997.
Alastair: I thought Dan B
suggestion is fine, so that is in PR...
... Please note that this is a new patter with this technique.
Last check is ONLY for AAA version.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think Dan is wrong
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if that is an amendment to 2997?
Alastair: so this lets us use
single technique for AA and AAA where AAA has just one more
technique...
... this approach seems better that two very nearly techniques
-- but it is a new approach to Techniques.
<mbgower> Ah, okay, I think I get it. Thanks
Dan B: My edit was to include alternative mechanism -- which is allowed even at AAA as an exception
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2997 to address issue 2378
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<alastairc> +1
<laura> +1
<Chuck> +.9
<ShawnT> +1
<dbjorge> +1
Alastair: Agree but PR does avoid that difficulty
<mbgower> +1
<Detlev> +1
<jaunita_george> +1
<Jem> +1
<Raf> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 2997 to address issue 2378
Chuck: last open survey
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results#xq37
Chuck: Jake pointed out that we do not have a sticky footers technique.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say the adjustment was included
Alastair: Included straightforward edit from Dan Bjorge.
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended technique to address issue 2418
<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3009 technique to address issue 2418
<alastairc> +1
<Chuck> +1
<dbjorge> +1
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<Rachael> +1
<laura> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Makoto> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3009 technique to address issue 2418
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest post-survey conversation
Chuck: that is it for survey. Other topics?
Alastair: We might review target
size document?
... Also looking for suggestions on prioritization -- i have
been working oldest issues to newer ones
<Wilco> +1 to FIFO, seems fair
Chuck: Agree with chronological and deference to frequent contributor on GitHub
<Ben_Tillyer> Thanks all, have a good evening all
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/but how they could is/but how feds count is (see link)/ Succeeded: s/It is all in flux/this has been the reporting every six months for a few years, but new reporting is in flux/ Succeeded: s/overap/overlap/ Succeeded: s/which is not allowed at AAA as an exception/which is allowed even at AAA as an exception/ Default Present: ShawnT, Jennie_Delisi, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, Chuck, jeanne, Ben_Tillyer, Jay_Mullen, Makoto, Lauriat, JustineP, wendyreid, Rachael, dbjorge, alastairc, MichaelC, maryjom, kirkwood, sarahhorton, JenStrickland, Detlev, Azlan, SuzanneTaylor, AWK, Francis_Storr, Laura_Carlson, jaunita_george, mbgower, Jem, .9, joweismantel Present: ShawnT, Jennie_Delisi, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, Chuck, jeanne, Ben_Tillyer, Jay_Mullen, Makoto, Lauriat, JustineP, wendyreid, Rachael, dbjorge, alastairc, MichaelC, maryjom, kirkwood, sarahhorton, JenStrickland, Detlev, Azlan, SuzanneTaylor, AWK, Francis_Storr, Laura_Carlson, jaunita_george, mbgower, Jem, .9, joweismantel Regrets: Todd Libby Found Scribe: Jennie_Delisi Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie_Delisi Found Scribe: bruce_bailey Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey Scribes: Jennie_Delisi, bruce_bailey ScribeNicks: Jennie_Delisi, bruce_bailey 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]