Confirm scribe and any agenda additions

<Judy> JB: added items from Charles

Review of HTML -- change section to guide review

JB: There was a note from Charles on review.
... want to check with Janina and Michael that you are aware

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/HTML_5.2

Janina: I missed Charles note, now aware

Judy: Have you got what you need from this message?

Michael: APA looked at it 1.5 months ago, and is looking at it in 6 months once it matures further

Judy: There is a change section to guide the review

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/changes.html

Michael: We used the change section, nothing new or pressing
... I believe HTML publishes whether or not there is something interesting. Nothing interesting to spend time on right now

Janina: I believe the main focus now is to clear out things that aren't implemented
... we looked at the change log. We will look again in a few months.

Michael: ARIA is also looking at this

<Judy> ...to see if there any new ARIA features needed

Janina: This is one of the major things out of TPAC, ARIA looked at the features

Judy: Should other a11y groups look at this also?

Michael: I think the AG will need to look at it for Silver time frame

Update on AG WG Charter review status, issues

Judy: Update of issues that are for discussion.

Michael: The AC got 30+ reviews. Some comments to request new liaisons, not difficult to implement
... some bigger comments are on confusion about what ACT TF is, and proposed removing it or moving it to CG.
... Possible that clearification is needed.
... Other proposed that Silver is too long term and should be moved into incubation.
... Others say the focus should be to complete WCAG 2.1, and not distractions from other projects.
... More suggested that the focus should be on mobile, and leave cognitive and low vision till later.
... We are in process of discussing this with the WG and with commentors. The WG does not intend to back off on COGA or LV work. They feel it is as mature as Mobile.
... There are different oppinions about the timelines. I don't have a clear vision what the outcome would be.

Judy: Process wise, the W3C will look carefully at comments regardless of how they were raised, some raised as formal objections.
... those all get looked at and discussed. The WG also looks back at its plans to see if they can come to agreement, also with those who support it.
... charter got significant support. We will try to move quickly, but it may take a bit time.
... The proccess is managed by Wendy Selzer, in coordination with Andrew, Josh, Michael, myself
... the original hope was that the charter could be process before the turn of the year, but if not hopefully the very beginning of January
... some issues came up in the comments that we'll continue to watch. There seems continued pressure to keep charters short. That is W3C wide. But we have to look whether a longer charter can give more stability
... there were 1 or 2 cases where a participant had supported but the AC Rep objected. That is something that is quite unusual
... it is good that representatives in your group check with home base so that if there are potential objections, we can learn about those early.

Katie: I wonder if the charter issue will effect the date of FPWD

Judy: That is a concern, I think they are hoping to keep close to schedule

Michael: If we can get the charter approved by 1st or 2nd week of January, I'm not worried about FPWD
... otherwise I'm worried

Call for stakeholders, Silver TF, pending AG WG charter

Judy: Jeane has alerted people to interest in getting stakeholders for silver
... we got a request to retweet that. It may be a littl ackward if the existance of the taskforce is still in question.
... as soon as the charter is approved it would be great to promote it more.

Josh: We think having the work of silver in the WG is a preference. I would like to support the preference of the people doing this work. If we need to make a case to support that I'm for that

Judy: I don't know if W3C proccess says something specific about how to weigh this. The dialogue is intended to capture the perspective from member organizations.
... in some case it appears that people who support the work might not have said something.
... I'm happy to convey that to Wendy and if needed to Tim, via Wendy. I don't think there is a formula for how take into account the preferences of participants who are at the table for that.

<Joshue> +1 to Tzviya

Tzviya: Incubation got popular lately. We've been pushing this into digital publishing. It is a different work flow and it does not suit every WG.
... since WICG is so public, people sometimes are shy

judy: There is a group, web incubator community group, WICG, to incubate work for HTML. There is also incubation in general, through regular community groups
... the request in AG WG comments was a request to move the silver work to a regular community group for incubation.
... we didn't get asked to put the silver work into WICG

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on incubation

Tzviya: yes that helps, but there is also controversy about moving CG to WG

Michael: Also Tzviyas point on people's preferences for working is important

Judy: My impression that there is some confusion on AT and UA for the Silver stuff.
... and even some misunderstanding on how much time it took for WCAG to get tracktion.
... it is also possible that Silver can clearify those aspects, and it could be reason to try to pull in stakeholders.

Josh: About UA and AT requirements, we had comments from Jeanne. She is willing to reassess UA and AT within the AG stack, if we need it to get the charter out.
... That's a good thing, because it is an unknown quantity. Also the more we can disconnect UA requirements from UAAG and ditto for ATAG the better.
... that could help us with the charter.

Judy: It's a tricky issue. The tendency could be to remove things, and sometimes it can be valuable if it can be clearified without removing things. That work may still be needed but wasn't understood.
... Andrew had conversations to provide clearification.
... I think we should avoid the reflex, make sure there is thoughtful conversation.

Josh: Agree to a point, as we are dealing with things we don't fully understand at the moment
... we may have a sense of things to do, and they think it be hand waving. We have to do things that clearify and do things on point.

Judy: I think the scope of Silver isn't yet clear. It is getting clearer.
... this is something that has to be wayed through the recharter process. This was on the agenda to explain about the process.
... Are there any more questions on the process.

Update on related accessibility standards processes (Europe, US, other)

Judy: Shadi and I are tracking these. In the case of WCAG it looks like some stuff in Europe may be intersecting. Shadi is tracking it more closely
... There was in the parlement discussion on the applicability for mobile accessibility
... they asked the EC to work on mobile accessibility work with a standards organization.
... they became aware that WCAG WG was already working on that. So the question has to do how the timeline intersects
... There have also been a few changes in the US. We don't know for sure how it will effect the 508 refresh
... Also there is some standards work going on in China which may lead to futher harmonization with this group.
... There is some work on adding more liaisons to the group

Tzviya: No updates on liaisons. The majority of people that'd be a11y liaisons are already. There may be some new memberships. Ingrim joined W3C
... I don't know if they will be leading groups.

Current WG and TF work priorities, messaging needs

Judy: Any comments on any of the work on WAI

Kathy: We have a good group in the TF, but it's not clear what the TF role will be now the SCs have been proposed
... the other concern is that key with these SCs is we must let people know about what mobile a11y is and what is applicable.
... We don't have anything out there that says where mobile fits. We need to have a plan beyond the work of 2.1, to give visibility of what is mobile a11y and how WCAG applies

Judy: I'm wondering if it makes sense to partner with Silver
... There may be an opportunity for two stages. First to engage on the uptake of mobile SC, and then to work on Silver

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say DPub CR and to say Silver and to say WCAG 2.1 FPWD

Michael: DPUB WAI Module will go to CR next week
... there are concerns about how Silver has been messaged
... We should think about how to message it, when the taskforce messages it loudly and independenty. But we should set parameters.
... WCAG 2.1 will also be a major message. We'll need to message how people interpret carefully

Katie: From a WG participant of WCAG, I'd like to have participants of all task forces to feel invited to participate in the working group. We can totally use their input on everything else

<Joshue> +1 to Katie

Katie: we welcome and would love to have everyone from the taskforces to become part of the major WG.

Josh: Agree with Katie. As we progress we need to get the input from all these people. We need them for the techniques and understanding documents

Judy: What about the ACT Taskforce

<Joshue> Wilco: I'm participating

Wilco: I regularly participate

WAI IG question on platforms

Katie: I've not watched that question

Work items needing coord or cross-reviews between groups

Judy: Is there anything anyone is working on that another group needs to look at?
... There is some interesting work in progress in EO to improve discoverability of resources. That will be worth looking at some point in the coming month

SC Managers in WCAG 2.1 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

Josh: Part of the review process, I haven't discussed this in detail with Andrew. This is a way to manage the review process.
... people would select a few SC and become the manager of that. Ensure that feedback is incorporated, produce a new iteration, look to deduplicate.
... there are many criteria, small amount of time. This could be a way to do it.
... it's a draft, but it gives an overview.

<Judy> "Request forbidden by administrative rules"

Judy: sounds very interesting. Would love to see

Tzviya: We've gone over a specific criteria. This worked well for us
... We had 6 people on the call, Katie walked us through what we needed to do to get it into a proper format

Judy: I'm hearing this is an efficient way to get to language that is consensus ready
... My undertanding that Philippe le Hegaret would be checking all the WG milestones, I wanted to check with everyone to ensure that you are looking at your milestones.
... he will be asking about that pretty soon if not already.

Michael: Janina is keeping it on the agenda. ARIA checked Milestones a month ago. WCAG we believe is also up to date

Janina: The IQTF looks like it might take off. We had someone specifically take up captioning. I was happy to hear that

Judy: Next meeting, December 21

<Judy> [JB: any regrets for Dec 21? any topic requests?]

Judy: Any regrets or topic request? No

<MichaelC> MC plans not to attend