14:27:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:27:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-irc
14:27:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:27:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:27:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:27:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:27:46 <trackbot> Date: 18 October 2016
14:28:56 <Joshue108> agenda+ Charter update
14:29:04 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:29:04 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:29:05 <Zakim> 1. Charter survey and discussion: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161010charter/results [from AWK]
14:29:05 <Zakim> 2. Discussion of update cycle for WCAG [from AWK]
14:29:05 <Zakim> 3. Charter update [from Joshue108]
14:29:26 <Joshue108> zakim, clear agenda
14:29:26 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:29:30 <Joshue108> agenda+ Charter update
14:29:55 <Joshue108> agenda+ Silver Work Statement https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0119.html
14:30:05 <Joshue108> agenda+ Github issues
14:30:24 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue108
14:40:00 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
14:46:39 <MichaelC> agenda?
14:49:50 <Srinivasu> Srinivasu has joined #wai-wcag
14:53:39 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
14:55:13 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #WAI-WCAG
14:56:19 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:38 <AWK> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:56:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html AWK
14:56:43 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:58 <AWK> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:56:58 <Zakim> Present: AWK, JF, alastairc, Joshue108_, Lauriat, Mike, Elledge, wilco, jeanne, Marc_Johlic, kirkwood, MichaelC, Kathy, Makoto, Laura, Kim_D
14:57:11 <AWK> present: AWK
14:58:07 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC
14:58:13 <Srinivasu> +Srini
14:58:18 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
14:58:24 <Rachael> +Rachael
15:00:24 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:53 <kirkwood> +Kirkwood
15:01:35 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:55 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:02:00 <AWK> zakim, agenda
15:02:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', AWK
15:02:03 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
15:02:03 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:02:04 <Zakim> 1. Charter update [from Joshue108]
15:02:04 <Zakim> 2. Silver Work Statement https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0119.html [from Joshue108]
15:02:04 <Zakim> 3. Github issues [from Joshue108]
15:02:16 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:02:37 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:05 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:26 <DavidMacDonald> DavidMacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:40 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:44 <Lauriat> Present+ Lauriat
15:04:39 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:39 <Zakim> Present: AWK, MichaelC, Srini, Greg_Lowney, Rachael, Kirkwood, Joshue108, Kathy, Lauriat
15:04:52 <Rachael> scribe: Rachael
15:05:30 <Joshue108> zaki, next item
15:05:36 <Joshue108> zakim, next item
15:05:36 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Silver Work Statement https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0119.html" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:05:40 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
15:05:40 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Charter update" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:05:52 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:06:38 <laura> present+ Laura
15:06:38 <DavidMacDonald> present+ DavidMacDonald
15:06:43 <Rachael> Update on the charter. As of Friday, we had 18 thumbs up for the charter and 1 outstanding objection. The chairs feel the objection was partly addressed by the language in the charter. The charter will be advanced. Good work and thank you to everyone for their contributions.
15:06:58 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:13 <Rachael> This is the next review cycle and it will come back to the group again. We will hopefully get there soon.
15:08:32 <Rachael> AWK: I sent an email about the charter process moving forward. Sometimes it feels like we approve something it goes to the void. The process from here is that over the next month and a half, the charter would be approved. It should be by Dec 16. Over November we will be getting additional feedback from the AC reps.
15:09:01 <steverep> steverep has joined #wai-wcag
15:09:13 <steverep> present+steverep
15:09:16 <Joshue108> q?
15:09:26 <Rachael> We may get feedback from W3C management before the Nov. 1 AC meeting. We will be addressing substantive issues as a group. We'd like to address these before Dec 1 when we get the success criteria.
15:09:44 <Rachael> Joshue:Any comments or questions?
15:10:02 <Rachael> David: What is the outstanding objection?
15:10:25 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
15:10:32 <Rachael> AWK: There was a question about specifying the three year period of time.
15:10:38 <JF> Present+ JF
15:11:19 <Rachael> Joshue: The formal objection was about the time.
15:11:50 <JF> Q+
15:11:55 <Rachael> David: Unsure whether the objection was over the time or the risk of items not making it into the next version.
15:11:58 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:12:02 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
15:12:10 <Srinivasu> Hope you all got to read my comment about time. where I said it should not be too short or it should be too long.
15:12:24 <Rachael> JF: What will happen if we are driving to a deadline and everything is not ready?
15:12:38 <MichaelC> q+
15:13:04 <Rachael> Joshue: Let's cross that bridge when we get there. The ACs are weighing in at this point. We are unsure what will happen but we have it at a stable state that we can pass.
15:13:10 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
15:13:17 <AWK> q+ to say that we are keeping to the timeline for WCAG 2.1.
15:13:23 <Rachael> pass upstairs.
15:13:48 <Rachael> JF: I don't see us moving forward until we have a clear answer to the question.
15:14:15 <MichaelC> ack me
15:14:17 <JF> Charter also defines deliverables
15:14:23 <Rachael> Joshue: Is the fundamental question whether we will include all SCs and deviate the timeline?
15:14:46 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wai-wcag
15:15:39 <Rachael> AWK: Want to distinguish between the charter discussion and timeline discussion. We will have to make decisions. Its possible we may deviate from the timeline becuase things aren't there but there are risks to that. Management is following timelines more closely. There will be other concerns if we vary from the timeline.
15:15:43 <JF> +1 to all that Michael has stated
15:15:49 <AWK> ack awk
15:15:49 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that we are keeping to the timeline for WCAG 2.1.
15:16:45 <Joshue108> q?
15:17:08 <Rachael> AWK: We would have difficulties getting rechartered if we are unable to produce a meaningful standard within the timeline.
15:17:43 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:17:43 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:17:44 <MichaelC> q+
15:17:45 <Zakim> 2. Silver Work Statement https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0119.html [from Joshue108]
15:17:45 <Zakim> 3. Github issues [from Joshue108]
15:17:52 <MichaelC> q-
15:17:53 <Joshue108> zakim, take up item 2
15:17:53 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Silver Work Statement https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0119.html" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:17:56 <DavidMacDonald> q+
15:17:57 <MichaelC> 1+
15:18:01 <MichaelC> q+
15:19:13 <Rachael> Sean: We had stated an objective: The objective of the subgroup is to update the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines following a research focused, user-centered design methodology to produce the most effective and flexible outcome.
15:19:46 <Rachael> We did not include a timeline. We are still working that out. Later steps will be informed by research so may vary.
15:20:19 <Rachael> *CAn someome take scribe?
15:20:58 <Joshue108> SL: We settled on a minimum time requirement etc.
15:21:09 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about TF
15:21:13 <Joshue108> SL: We wanted to include hours of active work.
15:21:15 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about participation levels
15:21:27 <Joshue108> SL: Then there is a bit about patent policy.
15:21:38 <Joshue108> SL: Its consise.
15:22:26 <Joshue108> ack dav
15:22:35 <Joshue108> DMD: Thanks for your hard work on this.
15:22:41 <Joshue108> DMD: Great to see movement.
15:23:18 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about locus of work
15:23:23 <Joshue108> DMD: It looks like the Silver committee is taking responsibility to write the draft. Should this be te TF doing this, or should the editors draft be done by the WG?
15:23:41 <Joshue108> SL: The writing itself is just outlining the section of the process.
15:23:55 <Joshue108> SL: Link coming.
15:23:59 <Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Process_of_Designing_Silver
15:24:13 <Joshue108> DMD: Where does it say the WG will be writing the FPWD?
15:24:35 <Joshue108> MC: I can answer..
15:24:42 <JF> Q+
15:24:43 <Joshue108> DMD: Its a high bar..
15:25:02 <Joshue108> DMD: the wider group should be writing the draft IMO.
15:25:16 <MichaelC> ack me
15:25:16 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about TF and to talk about participation levels and to talk about locus of work
15:25:16 <Joshue108> ack m
15:25:20 <marcjohlic> MC:  3 things to talk about
15:26:20 <JF> +1 to establishing a TF
15:26:27 <marcjohlic> MC:  Presented as a sub group - but there's no formal W3C procedures.  I would like this to become a task force rather than a subgroup.  Task Force will provide more structure.
15:26:29 <Joshue108> +1 to Silver group being a TF
15:26:50 <marcjohlic> MC:  Would like to work with you on the work statement.  Good start, but we can brush it up and take it through a refining and approval process.
15:27:05 <Rachael> *Thank you Joshue. I can take Scribe back.
15:28:11 <marcjohlic> MC:  Participation expectations - nice to ask for 8 hours / week - a lot to ask.  Typically we try to set a "hope for" level - but participants should not be removed if they don't make the full allotment (however they should still keep up)
15:28:30 <marcjohlic> MC:  Another reason for task force is that we would formalize leadership
15:28:48 <Rachael> * Thank you Marc.
15:29:40 <marcjohlic> MC:  Talk about where work would happen.  TF is a focused work unit w/i the working group.  Goal is to go off and do some work.  Feel it is appropriate for TF to write initial drafts at an Editor's level
15:30:09 <Joshue108> q+ to ask about turning group into TF
15:30:55 <AWK> +1 to Michael's comments on making a TF (this is part of the silver subgroup plan) and FPWD happening in the TF
15:30:57 <marcjohlic> MC:  Working Group approves publications.  TF has to get approval from WG to publish anything it produces.  As we approach FPWD and it goes through review by WG there may be several edits
15:31:08 <marcjohlic> MC:  Staying in close coordination will make that easier.
15:31:19 <Joshue108> ack jf
15:31:29 <marcjohlic> JF:  +1 what MC said
15:32:24 <marcjohlic> JF:  Don't think everything in the TF needs to be touched on by working group.  Don't feel we need to have an 8 hour min from working group members.  2 hours is the current min - if you can do more that's great.
15:32:30 <Joshue108> ack me
15:32:30 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about turning group into TF
15:32:40 <marcjohlic> JF:  Smaller groups working cohesively with the larger group is the way to get things done.
15:33:01 <marcjohlic> JOC:  What are the mechanics to turning this into a TF
15:33:45 <marcjohlic> MC:  TF brings us slightly more structured formality.  We could setup separate wikis and such (if we decide to do that).  Process of approving is simply the WG saying "we hearby bless this TF"
15:34:16 <marcjohlic> MC:  Would like to get the Work Statement fully in line w/ other TF statements - and get that approved by the WG.  Could get that done in a 2 week time.
15:34:59 <marcjohlic> SL:  With the caveat that Jeanne knows a lot more about process, my primary concern is that we can just keep this moving forward - regardless what we call it - subgroup or TF
15:35:14 <marcjohlic> SL:  Welcome any help from MC on getting Work STatement flushed out
15:35:21 <laura> New charter dosen’t have a minimum time requirement for Participants other than the Chairs, Editors, and Test Leads: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter#participation
15:36:18 <marcjohlic> SL:  We don't expect folks to track hours - it was more of a level set that we are thinking it will probably take roughly 8 hours a week to be fully committed - to give folks an idea of the time
15:37:12 <marcjohlic> MC:  TF tend to get more attention at a chairing level - and typically provide staff contact resources for TFs vs sub group
15:37:37 <marcjohlic> MC:  So there would be a bit of a resource bump, but not THAT much over what has been there for the subgroup
15:37:54 <marcjohlic> MC:  TF just allows to formalize relationship w/ the WG
15:38:06 <marcjohlic> q?
15:38:21 <AWK> q+
15:38:28 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Any objections to creating the TF?
15:38:30 <AWK> ack AWK
15:38:32 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:38:55 <Rachael> q+
15:39:01 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Not speaking against it - just clarifying that we're not proposing opening a TF.  Just discussing that a TF for the Silver work seems like a good idea
15:39:06 <JF> I'm personally less concerned over *who* is writing the FPWD, and more interested that the larger group reviews and "blesses" what the initial author(s) bring(s) forward
15:39:08 <Mike_Elledge> Need to go. Looks like a good start. Bye!
15:39:32 <AWK> ack r
15:39:33 <marcjohlic> MC:  If we're going to go ahead w/ that, I will work w/ group on getting Work STatement finalized - and then come back to the WG for approval.
15:39:56 <marcjohlic> Rachel:  Replacing the Silver group or replacing?
15:40:02 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Replacing
15:40:26 <marcjohlic> SL:  I will be out most of November - back in December
15:40:39 <marcjohlic> SL:  Would like to get this wrapped up prior to that
15:40:49 <marcjohlic> MC:  We can work offline and get that taken care of
15:41:11 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #wai-wcag
15:41:25 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Jeanne still not here - do you think we've covered her concerns / questions?  Should we move on for now until Jeanne is here?
15:41:35 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Any other comments / questions?
15:41:35 <Joshue108> q?
15:41:48 <marcjohlic> zakim, take up next item
15:41:48 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Github issues" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:42:21 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
15:43:47 <marcjohlic> MC:  Assigning Issue 241 to myself - Linkrot
15:44:02 <marcjohlic> JOC:  I'll take Issue 240
15:45:01 <marcjohlic> MC:  Issue 190 might be a duplicate of Issue 196.  Alistair put in a comment saying he put in a pull request in 196 to cover there.  Should assign to Alistair
15:46:12 <marcjohlic> MC:  Issue 126 - wondering if we can assign this to Jon Avila - looks like he's commented on it
15:46:59 <marcjohlic> AWK:  There are a couple that if folks are on the call we might be able to get some guidance on
15:47:50 <marcjohlic> AWK:  If we look at the schedule on when we need to produce updates to Techniques and Understanding for March, we may run into problems w/ 2.1.  So the we'll have to determine if some of these are important enough to squeeze in during this time.
15:48:00 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:48:46 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Made a call on a few of them that were easier - made common sense - so pulled those commits in
15:48:52 <laura> laura has left #wai-wcag
15:49:05 <Rachael> q+
15:49:05 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Anyone struggling with any that they are assigned to?
15:49:33 <jeanne> present+ jeanne
15:49:56 <jamesn> q+
15:50:22 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Issue 200 - a rounding issue with color contrast tools
15:50:29 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
15:50:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html jeanne
15:51:07 <gowerm> Thought I'd mention I'm on the call; I've opened a lot of issues recently, and can answer questions anyone has
15:51:12 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:52:03 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Maybe we propose that rounding to the tenth is OK
15:52:12 <Rachael> q-
15:52:20 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Could you just wrap up some of the take aways in that thread?
15:52:23 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Sure
15:53:01 <marcjohlic> JN:  The 4.5 is easier to round up than the 3.1 - for example we'd have to say that 2.5 is sufficient
15:53:09 <marcjohlic> DMD:  That is a VERY important point
15:53:52 <marcjohlic> JN:  All in the thread - worth reading through.  We'd have to restate the SC so that it says:  "3.0:1" rather than just 3:1.  Rather that's editorial or not...
15:54:00 <JF> Q+ to ask whether or not this is a spec issue or a tool issue?
15:54:33 <marcjohlic> JN:  We take a hard line to avoid ambiguity.   We say 4.50
15:54:53 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
15:54:56 <Wilco> q+
15:55:03 <AWK> q+
15:55:04 <marcjohlic> JF:  Is this a spec problem or a tool problem.  Spec is pretty clear, but if tools are rounding in the wrong direction then that points to the tool.
15:55:09 <AWK> ack james
15:55:11 <AWK> ack jf
15:55:11 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask whether or not this is a spec issue or a tool issue?
15:55:17 <jamesn> ack me
15:55:32 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Want to agree with you, I just want us to say that 4.5: 1 means 4.5:1 - no rounding up
15:55:35 <AWK> ack wilco
15:56:13 <marcjohlic> WF:  From a tool designer's perspective this is more about if you take a scientific approach to this:  "how many significant digits do you have"
15:56:45 <AWK> ack AWK
15:56:49 <marcjohlic> WF:  Would be best to go to two digits - because that's where you have these colors
15:57:26 <Joshue108> q+ to ask if this means some of the well known tools are inaccurate
15:57:29 <marcjohlic> JF:  I'll say that 3:1 is the same as 3.0:1 or 3.00:1 etc.  I'm OK with changing it to 3.0:1 though
15:58:09 <JF> Q+ to ask about Errata on this?
15:58:10 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Agree w/ Wilco - this is a spec issue that has bearing on what tools do and the level of confidence in the tools.  We should address.  It won't be fixed in 2.0 - but could get it into 2.1
15:58:38 <Joshue108> ack me
15:58:38 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask if this means some of the well known tools are inaccurate
15:59:04 <marcjohlic> JOC:  I use different tools - does this mean that some of the tools are inaccurate?
15:59:31 <marcjohlic> WF:  No, means that there is a small interpretation difference that is allowed by WCAG and we could be more specific if we clean it up in the Understanding
15:59:44 <gowerm> Put in understanding +
15:59:50 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Agree - just make a decision if we allow rounding
16:00:59 <Joshue108> q?
16:01:48 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Think we can resolve it if we all agree if we decide to add the decimal or round
16:02:13 <marcjohlic> JOC:  But it can cause real problems if one uses one tool and another uses different
16:02:55 <marcjohlic> AWK:  I think the easiest solution is to allow the accepted practices of mathematics to be used and we just state the precision allowed
16:04:13 <marcjohlic> AWK:  The way it is now, we put out something using math - and people are making a determination based on that.  There's nothing wrong w/ what we have, it's just not what all people think it is.  We could make it clearer
16:04:26 <Joshue108> ack jf
16:04:26 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about Errata on this?
16:04:45 <marcjohlic> JF:  Could we make a bit of an Errata on this?
16:05:39 <marcjohlic> AWK:  We can publish into an Errata document as a separate document but won't get folded into the standard
16:06:33 <Joshue108> me nopp
16:06:39 <AWK> I can volunteer to draft a proposal for an entry into the errata document, for review next week
16:07:25 <Joshue108> ACTION: AWK to  volunteer to draft a proposal for an entry into the errata document, for review next week
16:07:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-331 -  volunteer to draft a proposal for an entry into the errata document, for review next week [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2016-10-25].
16:08:18 <marcjohlic> JOC:  David - can you tidy this up?
16:08:24 <marcjohlic> AWK:  I think all of the data is there
16:08:35 <marcjohlic> JOC:  I'll assign it to you Andrew
16:09:33 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Jeanne has joined - let's circle back to the Silver discussion
16:10:27 <Joshue108> TOPIC: Silver discussion
16:10:40 <marcjohlic> JS:  Think it would be great to change this to TF.  I'm fine with that
16:10:56 <marcjohlic> JS:  The min time requirement - did you want to hear anything around the rationale for that?
16:11:06 <marcjohlic> MC:  Sean did speak to that
16:11:33 <marcjohlic> s/MC:  Sean/MC: Shawn
16:13:26 <marcjohlic> MC:  Don't really have a history of kicking people out of task forces (could happen - but probably have bigger problems if we do)
16:14:10 <marcjohlic> JOC:  OK Good - thanks Jeanne.  Shawn gave us a great overview earlier
16:16:26 <Joshue108> 199
16:16:32 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/199
16:20:08 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Maybe we change "group of web pages" to "group of documents"
16:20:25 <Joshue108> how about grouped content?
16:20:25 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Bypass blocks is also related to this - in terms of having a useful thing that this can point to
16:20:46 <marcjohlic> DMD:  This is useful, but under our definition it's just one page
16:21:01 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Maybe we just make this Advisory for 2.4.5
16:21:35 <marcjohlic> DMD:  I think leaving it in is a good idea - so if we change it to "a set of documents"
16:22:26 <marcjohlic> DMD:  Make it Advisory and make a note that by definition that a PDF by URL is one web page
16:23:45 <Lauriat> q+
16:25:50 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Looks like we could close Issue 144  ?
16:26:16 <marcjohlic> AWK:  It could be closed because it has been taking up by LowVis TF - and integrated into 2.1
16:26:26 <laura> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/18-lvtf-minutes.html#item01
16:26:57 <marcjohlic> SL:  Where would the proposed change in wording for set of documents go
16:26:58 <laura> The Low Vision Task Force resolved to accept the 2 Icon font techniques.
16:27:11 <Joshue108> thanks Laura - I've closed 144
16:27:15 <laura> Providing an On-Screen Text Alternative for an Icon Font: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Icon_Font_with_an_On-Screen_Text_Alternative
16:27:22 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Instead of pointing to 2.4.5 as Sufficient it would be Advisory
16:27:31 <laura> Using aria-hidden="true" on an icon font that AT should ignore: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_aria-hidden%3Dtrue_on_an_icon_font_that_AT_should_ignore
16:27:37 <marcjohlic> SL:  Just wanted to make sure that "set of documents" would not apply to others
16:28:10 <marcjohlic> SL:  Content and web pages are generic enough that it can apply to most things whereas "set of documents" is more specific
16:28:31 <Joshue108> Laura - has 96 been taken up by the LVTF?
16:28:37 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/96
16:30:02 <marcjohlic> trackbot, end meeting
16:30:02 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:30:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, MichaelC, Srini, Greg_Lowney, Rachael, Kirkwood, Joshue108, Kathy, Lauriat, marcjohlic, Laura, DavidMacDonald, steverep, JF, Mike,
16:30:05 <Zakim> ... Elledge, jeanne
16:30:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:30:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:30:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:30:11 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-actions.rdf :
16:30:11 <RRSAgent> ACTION: AWK to  volunteer to draft a proposal for an entry into the errata document, for review next week [1]
16:30:11 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/10/18-wai-wcag-irc#T16-07-25
16:30:17 <laura> bye. Thanks all.