<trackbot> Date: 28 January 2010

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon

<janina> agenda: this

<MichaelC> scribe: Marco_Ranon

action 2 left open

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 2

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/6

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/2

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/8

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/11

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/12

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/16 on Jon G

<kliehm> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/

JS: no sub teams report today

<kliehm> Re: ACTION-16 Please check out http://www.wait-till-i.com/2008/01/08/generating-charts-from-accessible-data-tables-using-the-google-charts-api/

JS: next item, working on proposed consensus document

<oedipus> http://www.w3.org/wai/pf/html/consensus-procedures.html

JS: Consensus needs to be more than 50 percent plus 1. need to find the sufficient percentage

<gfreed> 617-300 is wgbh.

JS: we want to stop discussing the same issues indefinitely but allow for constructive discussion

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/consensus-procedures

JS: any feedback on this document?

Jon: how do we know when we are ready to submit a decision to WG?
... there should should be also counter proposals

MichaelC: counter proposals should go in an appendix

Cynthia_Shelly: ideally the cycle should take a month weeks

MichaelC: two weeks for TF discussion

JS: we need to produce change request in the TF before we we are ready to submit to WG
... email discussion is important as well as teleconfs

<Joshue> thats fine

<gfreed> sounds fine.

JS: do we think we should run web survey ion consensus?

Cynthia_Shelly: it was useful in WCAG, as deadline and single reference for discussion

JS: can be used to manage the TF work
... we would be able to approve a proposal or provide comments with a survey

Cynthia_Shelly: survey before the teleconf so people not into the call can still provide feedback

MichaelC: call for objections with survey
... call for consensus or for objection?

JS: should be call for consensus

Cynthia_Shelly: results of the survey ccould be passed on to the WG to show discussion behind a proposal

<kliehm> I'm OK with it.

JS: should we vote on this today? any objections?

OK

<AllanJ> no objection

<Joshue> Its fine

RESOLUTION: the draft consensus procedures document was approved as amended

JS: next topic, Bugs Review; Grouping; Timelines

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0292.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0245.html

<Laura> Bugs Proposed to be Accepted

<Laura> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/accepted

<Laura> Bugs Proposed to be Rejected

<Laura> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/rejected

MichaelC: better to tackle the bugs by group
... there are 10 categories

JS: questions about the grouping?

<MikeSmith> amen to what Gregory just said

Jon: suggesting to group by accessibility API mapping

JS: Jon, do you want to lead on this project?

Cynthia_Shelly: Cynthia_Shelly and SteveF already working on something like this

JS: if we change group are we still sending a summary change proposal?

Cynthia_Shelly: we should due to the importance of summary

<Laura> Accessibility Change Proposal Status: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Accessibility_Change_Proposal_Status

<Laura> If a change proposal is not completed by the deadline, the issue will be closed without prejudice & deferred to the next version of HTML.

JS: need to forward decisions to the WG fairly quickly. Using the proposed groups ould help to focus on the single items
... can we do that still considering accessibility API?

<Joshue> +q

<Joshue> Joshue, to say that I agree with setting the rules for the cascade etc. @summary should be in the spec but we are aware of its limitations as a semantically rich long descriptor

JS: should we add cascading to the ten topics to be considered after the other groups?

<Joshue> -q

Jon: cascade will help provide arguments for the importance of things like summary but also to explain how things should work re accessibility API

JS: we can add cascade to the other ten groups
... proposing call for consensus on summarynext conf call

MikeSmith: will chair next week

<Joshue> bye y'all

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/no sub teams/JS: no sub teams/
Found Scribe: Marco_Ranon
Inferring ScribeNick: Marco_Ranon

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: AllanJ Ben Ben_Caldwell Cooper Cynthia_Shelly Gregory_Rosmaita JS Jon Jon_Gunderson Joshue Laura Marco_Ranon Matt MichaelC Mike MikeSmith P1 P16 P22 P8 WGBH aabb aacc gfreed is janina jongunderson kliehm oedipus perhaps trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Denis_Boudreau, Chaals, Eric_Carlson, Laura_Carlson, Steven_Faulkner, Kelly_Ford, Markku_Hakkinen, Bruce_Lawson, Aurélien_Levy, Sylvia_Pfieffer, David_Singer, Maciej_Stachowiak)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Denis_Boudreau, Maciej_Stachowiak, David_Singer, Bruce_Lawson, Markku_Hakkinen, Eric_Carlson, Kelly_Ford, aur�en_levy, steven_faulkner

Regrets: Denis_Boudreau Maciej_Stachowiak David_Singer Bruce_Lawson Markku_Hakkinen Eric_Carlson Kelly_Ford aur�en_levy steven_faulkner
Found Date: 28 Jan 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report