Meeting minutes
<gb> /issues/79 -> #79
<gb> /issues/83 -> #83
<gb> /issues/85 -> #85
<gb> /issues/89 -> #89
New Business
Fazio_: 60 out of 139 items closed, many of the remaining are editorial
janina: We will follow APA schedule last meeting for 2023 will be the 20th
stacey: Issue 132 - someone wants User Research before User design in the order
<Fazio_> w3c/
<gb> Issue 132 User Research is not User Experience (by jake-abma)
within the design text, checklists etc is vague, also only addresses user not employee
the section numbers in question is 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.1.3
sbyrnehaber: I didn't do the best job fleshing that section out. We should probably add in that user research needs to be done at multiple points, and just because it is first doesn't mean its sequential
sbyrnehaber: I can meet with stacey to expand on this section
Sheri: not dictating approaches, like design thinking or agile…this is SDLC and they changed it to ICT)
Mark_Miller: the introductory comment helps with the ambiguity
Fazio_: +1 to Mark
<Fazio_> +1 to Mark
Stacey: maybe I'm the only one having a problem
<Fazio_> Sheri, we can better define the proof points
not exactly Fazio_ I said we could add text that makes the proof points clearer that there are no sequential dependencies and we aren't dictating strategy or approach
Mark - use lower case and period for the bullet points, it helps tie everything back
Sheri: we should do a quick consistency check on the rest of the bullet points outside of ICT also
Sheri: we can clean that up when stacey and I get together to brainstorm the additions
MM Draft usability update
issue 43
<gb> Issue 43 Should "proof points" and "ratings for evaluation" sections be combined for clarity? (by jasonjgw)
Fazio_: we are calling this the "usability issue"
stacey: in the narrative, the proof points and the ratings sections are too far disconnected
stacy: do we want to propose a plain language summar?
stacey: described a plain language proposal for the communications dimension. The original ticket logger (Jason) didn't object
Fazio_: We need to match the verbs in the narrative with what is in the spreadsheet
Mark_Miller: Likes this approach, this would help orient someone like me
Mark_Miller: Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them
Mark_Miller: in Optimize, the key part is you are influencing beyond your organization and contributing to the community as a whole. (sbyrnehaber: this is a different issue)
stacey: Susi and stacey are meeting at 6 am EST next Weds to discuss
Github Issue #79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evaluation - Support: Outcomes for optimize stage don't align with proof points
<gb> /issues/79 -> #79
<gb> Issue 79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evaluation - Support: Outcomes for optimize stage don't align with proof points (by maryjom)
Fazio_: there is some crossover with personnel
Fazio_: a comment from sbyrnehaber last Jan says assign it to her
sbyrnehaber: but that is because last January, Support was a bit of an orphan
Fazio_: the larger question is do we want to duplicate proof points when they show up in multiple dimensions
sbyrnehaber: that creates a maintenance and double credit issue if they show up twice
sbyrnehaber: perhaps we need to bolster the intro saying "there may be cross over between Support and ...." to provide people a hint that some support details show up elsewhere
Jeff: Susi did a bunch of spreadsheet updates that didn't end up in the narrative
Mark_Miller: and Jeff: do we have a bigger issue that we need to sync up narrative with spreadsheet changes
jeff: spreadsheet changes didn't go through github
stacey: the support summary in the spreadsheet matches the narrative
<Fazio_> Employees/Talent Acquisition: Candidates are offered accommodations for their interviews. Disability Employee Resource Group(s) provide social and professional support to employees with disabilities.
sbyrnehaber: for each dimension that has overlap, we need to have a clear line which proof points goes into what dimension
sbyrnehaber: for example, TA could say "Candidates are offered accommodations as defined in the support dimension for their interviews"
sbyrnehaber: and support could contain accommodations process, strategy, budgeting, etc.
jeff: thinks optimize outcome needs to be rewritten for support
<janina> +1 to Sheri's forward id hrefs
janina: we don't need two separate issues, but the cross links will be useful
strike that
janina: open up a new issue (Jeff said he would execute on it)
CharlesL: issue 172 documents discrepancies between spreadsheet and narrative
<gb> Issue 172 Proof Point Discrepancies between Specification and Template (by clapierre)
Fazio_: will implement sbyrnehaber 's suggested changes for crossover in personnel