<AWK> -Srini, Greg_Lowney, Joshue108, kirkwood, jeanne, Wilco, alastairc, Lauriat, marcjohlic, Makoto, Laura, Rachael, steverep, KimD, JF, MichaelC, Judy, David_MacDonald

<AWK> +AWK

<AWK> +Marc_Johlic

<kirkwood> +kirkwood

<scribe> scribe: alastairc

<AWK> Chair: AWK

Charter survey and discussion: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161010charter/results

AWK: We've had a survey, had a surge of responses just now. Since the last call we've had lots of email on the list, and plenty of conversations elsewhere as well. Including Wendy Selzer, and Judy. Some concern with the conversation on the list, as we are listening and updating the charter.
... The charter doesn't magically create consensus, but we are adjusting it based on feedback, and will have a call for consensus when appropriate.
... Please do listen to each other and be respectful.
... I believe the charter does address many of the concerns, but the biggest issue to discuss is the 'regular updates' aspect.
... We've moved the dates for post 2.1 updates out of the charter into a separate document to allow the group time to comment and discuss.
... Question 1 was the charter duration, which doesn't really change from the previous version. A question was around the regular updates for techniques, and it does include that. During WCAG 2.1/Silver we might decide to miss a 6 month deliverable on those, but it is mentioned there.

JF: Can we get something specific delivered for Silver? E.g. First working draft.

AWK: There is a mention of that as WCAG next, not using the term Silver in the charter.

(Missed a bit about moving things around the charter sections, but gist was it is there.)

MichaelC: I think we are agreeing on that.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about Silver timeline

Jeanne: I would like to agree with what Micheal said about putting requirements doc in non-rec track deliverables, we're still working on timeline.
... Should be able to provide milestones soon, but there a lot of traveling in the silver group at the moment.

MichaelC: It is better to be early than late on milestones, so we should give that some leeway, if we beat the date then great.

AWK: it is listed in the milestones, and we should change wcag.next to accessibility guidelines 3.0.
... Any other questions on the duration of the charter?
... Question 2 on scope changes.

People had questions about doing updates to docs on UAAG/ATAG, these are not things that are of focus but there is a general bullet point that could cover it.

AWK: that should make it a bit clearer on that point. Also, I think GregL asked how we can tell we are doing normative updates? That is now covered.

<Wilco-stealth-mode> +1

AWK: JF had a comment?

JF: Echoing back what's in the background piece, agreeing with it.

<Joshue108_> So Wilco-stealth-mode - is that a +1 for the ACT timeline mentioned in the charter?

AWK: Question 3 - Regular updates to WCAG, expecting more discussion on this. In the charter we indicated in "3. Deliverables" that we're moving that to the "AG WG Project Management Plan".

MichaelC: AG has been used instead of WCAG, we'll need to update that elsewhere as well.

AWK: Charter talks about regular updates, without committing to a particular time span, signalling we are aware this is a concern, and we are intending to rectify the concern in future. The details will need to be clarified, which is what the PM document covers, which is in development.

David: The question is framed in interesting way, with implication that W3C management is looking for faster iteration. As soon as you say we have to release on a schedule you could potentially have a disaster. If WCAG 2.0 had been released the first time around in 2006, that would have been a disaster, there were many comment that had been dealt with by the 2008 release. WCAG was meant to be a stable, long term structure. Concern with changing the

model, I get that there is some change needed, don't want to just slap a different layer on top.

David: Timed releases are a very different model, it's getting pulled in different directions, it's confusing.

JF: Within the W3C process, the AC group is confidential so can't point to specific quote, but feedback from the management is that we should have shorter timelines. Part of that is a reaction to HTML5 taking so long to get out the door. We've got 5.1 out in CR now, and 5.2 being worked on.
... we also need to be mindful of other stakeholders, but from the AC & AB that is what they want.
... the AC will look at the longer charter and say "ok, you need that to get out 2.1". We've agreed we want to do 2.1 on a fixed timeline and ship in 2018. We all know that we can't process 50 SC in that timeframe, so we need a plan to communicate to AC to show progress in the charter timescale.

<David_MacDonald> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0116.html

JF: and at a time after that we'll ship the next batch.
... Having a regular cadence of 2 years doesn't break 2.0, but getting 50 SC isn't going to ship in 2018. Establishing a regular cadence, people can plan around that.

AWK: Agree with what JF is saying about the pressure, and we are hearing that WGs there is a risk that if you don't have a rec track deliverable within the charter timeline you won't get chartered.

<JF> +1 to AWK

AWK: Worried that once done with 2.1, that silver takes longer than the next charter period. In the meantime, technology still continues, new things launch. If we say we need 4 more years for silver, we don't want to be converted to a community group to work on that longer timeline.

Joshue108_: I wasn't a fan of the 2 year cycles to start with, but as time goes on I am coming around. In the long run, I think it will be good. In terms of policy & legislation, if we dance to a difference beat they can to. We keep it up to date and predictable, the kind of delays we've seen would be lessened. So having the regular cycle is not comfortable, but worth a try.

<jeanne> +1 to Josh

David: we're a group of invited experts, it seems that there is backroom talk about the conditions we have to adhere to?
... Can we get these conditions out? Everyone, if asked, would like regular updates. We need to listen to Jason's email. I have a tweak to the wording that hopefully we can agree.
... I don't mind changing the SC , but the longevity comes from how we put the SC together carefully.

<David_MacDonald> The Working Group intends to reduce the time between WCAG releases, starting with WCAG 2.1. More discussion on these updates is documented in the AG WG Project Management Plan.

Joshue108_: We are in a position where we need something on track that can run in tandem with silver, the big concern is getting 2.1 out, and get work on Silver going with 1st public working draft. We have to be able to signal what the plan is past the charter.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to mention the Chartering issue around EO

JF: General point that: We have to acknowledge what the concerns of the AC are, it directly affects the funding of working groups.

MichaelC: The intent will be very apparent when the charter is reviewed, but we'd like to avoid it being rejected which would cause lots more work/time. In the structure of W3C we have to work to that structure. There is also feedback from other discussions outside W3C which we would like to account for.

<AWK> "The Working Group intends to produce updated guidance for accessibility on a regular basis, starting with WCAG 2.1." - current

<AWK> "The Working Group intends to reduce the time between WCAG releases, starting with WCAG 2.1. More discussion on these updates is documented in the AG WG Project Management Plan." - proposed

AWK: Comfortable with that change, both acknowledge speeding up without committing to a specific timeline.

JF: That's just kicking it down the road, the AC will ask about timeline.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to discuss David's edit

Joshue108_: The WG has to thread the needle, and we are not just creating a technology spec, it is different from HTML etc. Do think it's reasonable to push a little bit if it is something we need to do for functioning as a WG.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to state that I am not comfortable leaving dates open-ended

MichaelC: They may well ask, but we do have specific reasons for it, and plan to work on it for the next charter. In terms of specific wording, not bothered so long as we get consensus.

JF: We reached agreement that we won't ship all the proposed SCs in 2.1, does anyone disagree? If so, when do we do the others, later? When is later? If we don't show that, it is ambiguous, want to fight that ambiguity.

MichaelC: I think we agree that some SC won't get into 2.1, which is why we want to signal intent to update more frequently, but in 2 years we'll have a better idea of how to solve future release. Also we will know better what the frequent updates would have on the wider world.

JF: Problem is that we'll have SC that miss the cut off date, what then?

<David_MacDonald> Jason White quote " It’s also likely that some, if not most requirements emerging from the task forces which aren’t addressed in 2.1 will be difficult to transform into high-quality, testable success criteria – I think the easy issues will mostly, if not entirely, be resolved for 2.1, leaving us with the harder problems that take more time and effort to codify in WCAG."

MichaelC: At that time we have a decision to make, could be a quick 2.2, might be something else.

AWK: I think the charter has an implied cadence, so looking at SC that miss 2.1 what happens? Implies that it goes to Silver. I hope we don't ever need to publish a 2.2, I'd rather that in 2 years we have Silver almost ready.
... That may not be possible, so we have to tackle that question at the next charter. Davids text works for that. We will need to be specific about what happens to things that don't go into 2.1, but that depends on the current unknowns about Silver.

Joshue108_: +1 to that. If we look at what we want, that is what I would want to, anything not in 2.1 gets rolled into Silver. That isn't saying those SC are somehow deficient, not at all, but 2.2 is there if work on Silver takes longer than anticipated.
... Much of the work now has been forming the basis for Silver, e.g. new conformance methods, UAAG experience. We are not trying to be evasive on certain things, it is just planning for the unknowns.

JF: On scope change, if there is a major deliverable on 3.0 that's good, but we have no assurance that Silver will be ready in time for those. Imagine we ship 15, there might be 35 left. The parallel runway for both needs to be longer than either/or.

Joshe108_: The groundwork is being laid, not sure what more we can do for that at the moment.

<Joshue108_> JF: But things that don't make Silver can also potentially be rolled into a 2.2 etc

David: Jason said: it is likely that some or most of the requirements from task forces will be difficult to convert into our high quality SCs. The ones that don't make it are likely to be the harder ones.

<Joshue108_> JF: But my preference is for these things to be added to Silver. So whats the problem?

David: Silver might have a different criteria for SCs, which makes it easier to fit them in. A lot of the current ones won't make it in, so we need a revolutionary change to get them into guidelines. Maybe we need to put them into a best-practices until we can get them in.

<JF> for clarification, Josh's comment was him speaking to me, not that I made that comment

<Joshue108_> Correct

<David_MacDonald> "The Working Group intends to reduce the time between WCAG releases, starting with WCAG 2.1. More discussion on these updates is documented in the AG WG Project Management Plan." - proposed

AWK: Feels like we are starting to loop back on ourselves. I'd like to propose we can use the text there, and if anyone is objecting to that change (although there might be comments from AC), are there any objections to that change?

<jeanne> -1 -- it is a minor change and it appears to beg the AC to ask us how much. I prefer the language in the charter.

Joshue108_: Not sure it makes much difference or has net benefit.

AWK: Not a tremendous difference, neither commits to 2 years. I do think we need to resolve this and in the planning document we'll need to explain the timeline.

JF: The language is not resolving the issue, we should indicate our cadence. If we don't indicate an X basis (months/years) we will get push back from AC.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say one of the risks I´m concerned about is that iterating on 2.x more will extend the timeline to Silver which is more suited to address some of the

<jeanne> +1 to "The Working Group intends to produce updated guidance for accessibility on a regular basis, starting with WCAG 2.1. Depending on the outcome of the requirements development for the next major update to WCAG, it may be necessary to pursue further dot-releases of WCAG until the major release is ready to be completed in time for a scheduled release date."

<Joshue108_> +1 Michael

<Joshue108_> Well said

MichaelC: we've heard that loud and clear, but we will struggle to make commitment on the timeline for the next charter. Another risk is the more we spend time iterating on 2.x, the more that distracts us from the sliver project. But, do support doing something on it.

JF: We can't wait 7 years (likely number years for silver).

Mike: Wonder if the issue is committing to a timeline that is too short? 2 years is too short?

MichaelC: In some views 2 years is a good number, short enough for HTML, but with guidelines, changing their definitions every 2 years if difficult to deal with. will make it difficult for people who follow the guidelines, want to take time to explore those issues.

Mike: Could we do a 2.x update in 3 years or less? Is the AC likely to push back on 3?

MichaelC: Happy with an example number, but not commit to a specific number.

JF: I think that's closer to where we need to be, and if it is in the next charter than we are not committed anyway as the charter is revised. If we do 15 SCs in 2.1 and have 35 left, we might be able to do another 10-15 in 2 years and get those out to the market when they are ready.
... Just because we put it out as a 2.1 or 2.2, doesn't mean we expect people to transition right away. We had past discussions about that before.

Joshue108_: Have a feeling we are on the same page but from different perspective...

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if people would agree to: The Working Group intends to produce updated guidance for accessibility on a regular interval of approximately 3 years, starting

MichaelC: It is likely that in 2.1 we'll have some SCs that don't make it due to time and can ask for 2.2, but I think we need more data and more time, then we can set a number to it.

<Joshue108_> +1 and as we will be re-chartering them it gives us some room

AWK: Would people agree to: regular intervals of approximately 3 years... we could make it less or more later, but it is a figure. That might be silver, or dot release of WCAG 2.x. Would people agree with that.

<Mike_Elledge> +1

JF: I won't disagree with it.

<jeanne> +1

<laura> +1

David: like that.

<Kim_D> +1 to excluding "normative"

MichaelC: Would like to qualify with 'considering 3 years', just trying to work it in.

David: Would like to get more than hearsay about the criteria for the charter.

MichaelC: the working group intends to provide updated guidance... doesn't use normative / non-normative. I can live with it.

Jeanne: Would like to point out that the UAAG WG was closed by actions of the AC, there is precedence for closing groups, it is a real issue.

no objection, whatever gets us to the next stage.

JF: There have been some additional survey results posted during the call, I'll live with 3 year interval, I wish it wasn't that way but it is.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to add that I am in agreement with Jeanne, and I am trying very hard to help this WG avoid these p[roblems

<JF> From the current survey: Léonie Watson - In my capacity as AC rep for TPG, I strongly urge the WG to include a clear 2.x release schedule in the charter itself.

AWK: Would like to get a call for consensus out, we've made some changes, and on the survey I think the comments relate to things we have addressed. Including having a clear release schedule with only reasonable ambiguousness. Does anyone have more points to make before a call for consensus?
... Will send that out after the call, in the meantime we need to think about how we discuss the timelines. I sent email(s) to the list to clarify the pros and cons.

<Mike_Elledge> With six guns blazing!

Joshue108_: lets walk into the sunset as friends... thanks everyone.

<Kim_D> +Kim_D

<laura> bye.

<Mike_Elledge> Bye all!

trackbot end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148  of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/MichealC/MichaelC/
Succeeded: s/sliver/silver/
Succeeded: s/president/precedence/
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc

WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: AWK Srini Greg_Lowney Joshue108 kirkwood jeanne Wilco alastairc Lauriat marcjohlic Makoto Laura Rachael steverep
New list: AWK JF alastairc Joshue108_ Lauriat Mike Elledge wilco jeanne Marc_Johlic kirkwood MichaelC Kathy Makoto Laura Kim_D

Default Present: AWK, JF, alastairc, Joshue108_, Lauriat, Mike, Elledge, wilco, jeanne, Marc_Johlic, kirkwood, MichaelC, Kathy, Makoto, Laura, Kim_D

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: AWK)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ (no, one)

Present: (no one) JF alastairc Joshue108_ Lauriat Mike Elledge wilco jeanne MichaelC Kathy 1 Makoto Laura
Found Date: 11 Oct 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-wai-wcag-minutes.html
People with action items: