Meeting minutes
<gb> /issues/83 -> #83
<gb> /issues/85 -> #85
<gb> /issues/89 -> #89
New Business Agenda+ CSUN (should we meet) Agenda+ Working Draft end of year update Agenda+ Do we cite a particular WCAG profile as a conformance target? It seems reasonable to cite that WCAG profile A would arguably be in (Lionel’s question) Agenda+ MM Draft usability update (GitHub Issue 43) Agenda+ GitHub Issue #132 (see previous minutes) Agenda+ Github Issue #79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evalu
<gb> /issues/79 -> #79
<gb> /issues/132 -> #132
New Business
issue 43
<Fazio_> w3c/
<gb> Issue 43 Should "proof points" and "ratings for evaluation" sections be combined for clarity? (by jasonjgw)
stacey: using communications as Proof of Concept. could be simplified "section" looking at the table then simplified proof points.
… for the next time we meet after the holidays, and Suzy was going to look at Support for the same thing as a different dimension.
Fazio_: as long as it fits in one view port that would be great.
Jeff: are you providing an over all example of a section as a prototype?
stacey: Yes although I am not an HTML expert.
Charles: future agenda item, going over what Benetech has been doing with maturity model. Almost 90% complete. New tables, cross referencing and scoring for data insights on their maturity as a whole. Wants to share with the group as potential overall references for the spreadsheets.
David: if there's a W3C room at CSUN, can we invite public in and talk about maturity model?
Janina: Since it's not a talk, probably not.
Jeff: should we sync proof points and spreadsheet or just reference spreadsheet (or whatever the final doc is)?
David: let's do end of year update first, see examples from Benetech and tackle issue after. Check if there's a Git issue, if not add one.
David: is there an updated editor's draft? If yes, do we want those changes published along with that?
Charles: yes, we want new state to be the one that's published. Do all at the same time.
Github Issue #83 Section 3.7.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Culture: proof points vs. ratings mismatch
<gb> /issues/83 -> #83
<Fazio_> w3c/
<gb> Issue 83 Section 3.7.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Culture: proof points vs. ratings mismatch (by maryjom)
David: Is anyone else asking the same question?
Jeff: looks like someone might have updated the doc after this issue was submitted (?)
David: should we replace "Culture" with "Governance?" Where else in doc is governance?
David: key terms - does it include what governance is?"
Jeff: I think add definition for governance in key terms
<SusiPallero> Just in case it helps here are two definitions:
<SusiPallero> Culture is a system of learned and shared beliefs, language, norms, values, and symbols that groups use to identify themselves and provide a framework within which to live and work.
Janina: can we ask Mary Jo what she meant so we can get more details?
<SusiPallero> Governance is a system that provides a framework for managing organisations.
<Fazio_> Closed with comment: We would like to understand this issue better. We have added additional Proof Points, since this issue was logged.
Github Issue #85 Inconsistencies in Inactive ratings for various dimensions
<gb> /issues/85 -> #85
<gb> Issue 85 Inconsistencies in Inactive ratings for various dimensions (by maryjom)
<Fazio_> For consistency, all maturity stages should have a definition and outcomes for every dimension. This is true except for two cases: 3.3.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Support: Inactive stage has no outcomes listed. 3.6.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Procurement: Inactive state text that is there should be identified as a definition. It is also missing outcomes.
Jeff: there's a definition in both. Perhaps she thinks they're not specific enough?
Charles: There's not outcomes, though.
*no outcomes. (typo)
Jeff: outcomes redundant? What if we got rid of them in all of them in stage one?
David: no activities/outcomes from each proof point dimension for inactive stage? Is that what we're saying?
David: blanket statement around no effort being done for that evaluation level? (for inactive)
Stacey: # 43 and #83 might be tied together for concise on those definitions.
<gb> /issues/83 -> #83
Jeff: idea in definition..."no efforts to...be "no organized efforts?"
David: inactive = nothing happening. If there's something happening you don't know about, then there's still something happening.
Charles: when you find out about the effort, you can change the evaluation.
David: let Stacey, Susi, Mark look at 43 and 83 and see if they tie together and proof of concept.
David: leave open ended for resources or use WAI supported ones? (replace W3C in titles with WAI as it's recommended?)
Janina: Interesting point, but what exactly are the WAI activities? Need to remove W3C for now, but think about this on the side for pointing to specific things in specific places.