Meeting minutes
<Mark_M> maturity
Spreadsheet Update
stacey: Have emailed
stacey: reads her proposal
Fazio_: not a fan of "right thing to do" -- but like much
Fazio_: right thing to do because -- see 1 in 6
Fazio_: tell them why, and it brings people back in
SusiPallero: include "human right"
[discussion of using hyperlinks here]
[discussion of how to explain why]
jklkine: wanting to see language about barriers, eliminating barriers to employment, participation in life activities
<SusiPallero> +1
Mark_M: Love this draft -- wonder about 4th para where the model is described ...
. phps a more direct sentence of what amaturity model is, or what it accomplishes
.
. concern that people unfamiliar with maturity models wouldn't understand what an mm does
. it's there, but could be more concise and direct--more obvious
SusiPallero: agree with mark
. concerned about i18n use of 'disability'
. phps "temporary impairment"
janina: suggests phps barrier rather than impairment to keep focus on interface, not user function
TL;DR Update from Stacey: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-maturity/2023Jun/0000.html
agenda?
Support Dimension Update https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-maturity/2023May/0019.html
Small subgroupp task force (Stacey, Jeff, Lionel) roles compared to dimensions. Sneak peak for status. Not ready for feedback just yet
Please send the link to public. (update sent directly to Sheri and David already)
Cover page has status - in progress. Dimensions, method we're using informed and RACI. Role names are a bit nebulous at the moment.
Lionel: The role names as they stand are a bit nebulous-- we identify significant variation in the expectations people have associated with a given role title.
(RACI - responsible, accountable, consulted, informed)
Lionel: The selection criteria for inclusion in the role list is nebulous as well.
Selection criteria of inclusion of specific roles are nebulous
Such as developer vs evaluation or authoring developer, but content gets in there once.
Reducing to binary yes/no is hard
Where you see comments in the doc is where we had a lot of discussion
<SusiPallero> Maybe adding another column like "optional" or "desirable" (not sure that is the correct word) but like "it would be good to have them"
<SusiPallero> column or value
The Google Doc, https://
probably pair down and converge more, but if someone has DEI everytrhing ight be in there. Companies structure differently so need to be careful about validity. We don't want it to be taken too literally that this is the only/exact way to do it.
There are going to be organizations that has no idea who does what, what role, etc. But this is a tool that might use.
we inherited this role list, so we have questions on them...General council, dedicated council, corp council...many types of legal roles. Imagine we'll curate this list once we get through this first pass.
Could be we might go more minimal/more broad
legal and compliance instead of lawyer
so support would be yes according to RACI
We'll be ready and look forward to deep discussion once we get through first pass
<jklkine> never=mind
Stakeholder Document Update
Publication Update Update
topic support dimension update
support dimension update
Susi has last update from Charles. He added some changes, so we'll wait until he's on. Table this item for now.
publication update
hope to have this in shaped to vote for ready to update working draft this month (3 weeks to finish up re-drafting). Just needs ready for updated working draft. Doesn't need to be perfect
How do we feel about this (to the group)?
we probably have enough to update. Will follow up with Sheri.
Quite a few orgs have been testing this out, and we'll continue to get feedback from them
Any new business/ comments/ concerns?
Would be great to see folx in TPAC in Sept in Spain
<SusiPallero> I am attending too