14:28:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:28:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-irc
14:28:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:28:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:28:38 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:28:38 <trackbot> Date: 13 December 2016
14:28:38 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:28:58 <jeanne> trackbot, end meeting
14:28:58 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:28:58 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Avneesh, AWK, alastairc, mattg, Glenda, davidmacdonald, Joshue, marcjohlic, Lauriat, KathyW, Greg_Lowney, Laura, Makoto,
14:29:01 <Zakim> ... Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, jeanne, Judy, lisa_seeman, KimD, Rachael
14:29:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:29:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
14:29:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:29:07 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
15:32:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:32:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-irc
15:32:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:32:14 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:32:14 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:32:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:32:14 <trackbot> Date: 13 December 2016
15:32:23 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:32:23 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:32:24 <Zakim> 2. Survey of new SC proposals:  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from AWK]
15:32:37 <Joshue108> zakim, clear agenda
15:32:37 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:34:30 <Joshue108> agenda+ Discussion: SC managers
15:34:39 <Joshue108> agenda+ Update on charter discussion
15:34:53 <Joshue108> agenda+ New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/
15:35:02 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue
15:48:30 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:48:38 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
15:48:38 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:48:39 <Zakim> 1. Discussion: SC managers [from Joshue108]
15:48:39 <Zakim> 2. Update on charter discussion [from Joshue108]
15:48:39 <Zakim> 3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
15:51:14 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:52:37 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wai-wcag
15:54:48 <AWK> +WK
15:54:51 <AWK> -WK
15:54:53 <AWK> +AWK
15:55:37 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:10 <mattg> mattg has joined #wai-wcag
15:56:58 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wai-wcag
15:57:55 <Lauriat_> Present+ Lauriat
15:58:02 <Rachael> present+ Rachael
15:58:11 <AWK> Scribe: Bruce_Bailey
15:58:34 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:50 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:58:52 <MichaelC> present+ MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, AWK
15:59:05 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:59:05 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:59:06 <Zakim> 1. Discussion: SC managers [from Joshue108]
15:59:06 <Zakim> 2. Update on charter discussion [from Joshue108]
15:59:06 <Zakim> 3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
15:59:08 <Greg> Greg has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:09 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:59:09 <Zakim> Present: Avneesh, AWK, alastairc, mattg, Glenda, davidmacdonald, Joshue, marcjohlic, Lauriat, KathyW, Greg_Lowney, Laura, Makoto, Katie_Haritos-Shea, MichaelC, jeanne, Judy,
15:59:12 <Zakim> ... lisa_seeman, KimD, Rachael, Joshue108, Sarah
15:59:28 <bruce_bailey> present+ bruce_bailey
15:59:47 <AWK> present: AWK
15:59:50 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:59:50 <Zakim> Present: AWK
15:59:55 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:12 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:17 <AWK> present: MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey
16:00:35 <mattg> present+ mattg
16:00:37 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
16:00:39 <bruce_bailey> MicaelC:Silver TF meeting FtF during call
16:00:49 <bruce_bailey> ...Silver TF says hello
16:00:51 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:00:51 <Zakim> Present: MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg
16:01:01 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
16:01:33 <adam_solomon> adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:40 <Greg> present+ Greg_Lowney
16:01:52 <AWK> +Srini
16:01:58 <adam_solomon> present+ adam_solomon
16:01:59 <Wilco> present+ Wilco
16:02:03 <laura> present+ Laura
16:02:10 <Makoto> present+ Makoto
16:02:40 <bruce_bailey> josh starting meeting
16:03:17 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
16:03:17 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Discussion: SC managers" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:03:27 <AWK> Regrets+ Alastair
16:03:49 <bruce_bailey> josh: import issue ht Katie for suggestion
16:03:51 <AWK> Current description: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
16:04:04 <bruce_bailey> ..chairs have discussed role and how to be effective
16:04:29 <bruce_bailey> ..we will go through wiki page
16:04:39 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:43 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:50 <KimD> KimD has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:02 <KimD> +KimD
16:05:22 <bruce_bailey> ..idea is looking for provision acceptance, not final.  SC manager role is help WG members understand challenges, issues, concern, and drive SC on git hub
16:06:10 <bruce_bailey> ..in terms of driving discussion, outline is on git hub
16:06:11 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:06:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
16:06:42 <bruce_bailey> ..sc manager is central point to identifying issues and blocking items, hopefully reducing noise
16:06:55 <bruce_bailey> ..proposals can be merged, closed, etc.
16:07:01 <Joshue108> q?
16:07:06 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:12 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:18 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
16:07:20 <bruce_bailey> ..fresh sc are a possibility, wiki details how chairs think that might develope
16:07:39 <bruce_bailey> ..wg members will discuss on call as usual
16:07:49 <Joshue108> q?
16:07:53 <AWK> q+
16:08:03 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:08:09 <bruce_bailey> ..once sc manager and chairs feels ready for call for concensus, chairs will have sc on call
16:08:22 <bruce_bailey> AWK: to emphais a couple things
16:08:41 <bruce_bailey> .. try to keep active discussion on git hub
16:09:21 <bruce_bailey> .. keep the work on git hub, which gives us tracking, linking, pull control, and hooks for publishing
16:09:52 <bruce_bailey> .. last week we got a number of volunteers, but we want sc managers to only handle two at a time
16:10:10 <bruce_bailey> .. we have long history of tasks not getting sufficient attention
16:10:11 <Rachael> q+
16:10:16 <bruce_bailey> .. we want to spread out the work
16:10:20 <Joshue108> q+ to talk about only managing 2 at a time
16:10:50 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:10:59 <Joshue108> ack rach
16:11:00 <bruce_bailey> .. we have 16 signed up by 6 people, but two people signed up for five.  Chairs will be asking SC leads to only do two at a time
16:11:25 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  how to handle overlapping sc?
16:11:42 <bruce_bailey> josh: sc managers coordinate directly with each other
16:11:57 <bruce_bailey> .. outcome could be a differerent sc or hand off
16:12:08 <Glenda> Present+ Glenda
16:12:21 <bruce_bailey> .. this sort of this is core priority for sc manager
16:12:28 <Joshue108> ack Josh
16:12:28 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about only managing 2 at a time
16:12:46 <bruce_bailey> Racheal asks if one person coordinating related sc migh work better
16:13:11 <bruce_bailey> Josh asks that we start with just two at a time, keep attention focus, see how it works
16:13:22 <Joshue108> ack mike
16:13:33 <bruce_bailey> .. process is in work in progress, so we will adapt as needed
16:14:00 <AWK> "Ready for WG review" was to indicate the Dec 1 deadline readiness
16:14:14 <bruce_bailey> MikeE:  A number of git hub items say "ready to review" are they really ready for WG concensus?
16:14:32 <AWK> The SC manager process is "the WCAG review"
16:14:47 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Ready for review means ready for SC management, and that items are targeted for december pass
16:15:07 <Joshue108> q?
16:15:34 <adam_solomon> q+
16:15:47 <bruce_bailey> Josh, Mike, AWK clarify that ready for review means ready for TF review, not GL review
16:16:18 <bruce_bailey> Green lable means ready for SC managment
16:16:19 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:16:27 <bruce_bailey> AWK will be looking at updating labels
16:16:40 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
16:16:46 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
16:16:47 <AWK> ack adam
16:16:49 <Joshue108> ack adam
16:17:00 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
16:17:43 <bruce_bailey> AWK nutshell role of SC manager is that we have proposals from TF, but they need to formated for WG review
16:18:02 <bruce_bailey> ..there may be additional issues, conflicts with other draft SC.
16:18:35 <bruce_bailey> ..SC does not need particular expertise in topic, but they need to read, maybe format a bit more, and put together a pull request
16:18:59 <bruce_bailey> ..pull request when SC is in final format and WG group
16:19:48 <bruce_bailey> Adam Solomon:Will comments already be in git hub?  (AWK: yes) so does SC manager make edits to proposal?
16:20:47 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  SC manager probably should not be editing the proposal but elevating issues and guiding TF lead to make changes in response to issues
16:21:24 <David-MacDonald> David-MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
16:21:25 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  discussion could happen on git hub but also by email if absolutely neccessary.  threads on github are prefereable
16:21:39 <David-MacDonald> sorry late.... was on client call...
16:21:53 <David-MacDonald> Present+ David-MacDonald
16:22:10 <bruce_bailey> .. sc could restate what they are hear.  sc manager empowered to for and manage branch of modifications
16:22:14 <Ryladog> please do that Andrew
16:22:26 <Joshue108> +1 to vid
16:22:29 <Mike_Elledge> +1 to vid
16:22:30 <bruce_bailey> AWK may record video tutorial of this
16:22:31 <Wayne> Present+ Wayne
16:22:36 <Joshue108> q?
16:22:41 <KimD> +1 for instructions/info video!
16:22:48 <Glenda> +1 to the idea of AWK documenting how the SC manager can fork and edit the SC they are managing
16:22:52 <Joshue108> In a nut shell - the SC manager will drive the development, the iteration, acceptance, or deletion of a candidate SC.
16:23:00 <laura> Yes. GitHub process tutorial would be helpful.
16:23:28 <Joshue108> q?
16:24:08 <David-MacDonald> what are we on?
16:24:13 <bruce_bailey> AWK: some proposal have been driven by one or two people, so main reason for sc manager is to have at least more person vested in proposal
16:24:25 <Jim_Smith> Jim_Smith has joined #wai-wcag
16:24:33 <bruce_bailey> ..need fresh eyes sometimes
16:25:01 <laura> david, we are on https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
16:25:09 <bruce_bailey> AWK: one outcome might be that a great idea needs better UA support than we have, so SC might get defered
16:25:31 <bruce_bailey> .. TF are resources, but work is in hand of WG, WG makes decision.
16:25:53 <bruce_bailey> .. TF members are all WG members, but WG has responsibility and decision making
16:26:10 <Joshue108> q?
16:26:15 <bruce_bailey> Josh: WG will ultimated accept or regect (defer)
16:26:33 <Rachael> +1 to SC Managers
16:26:36 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Not hearing any objections to proposed process
16:26:44 <marcjohlic> +1
16:26:45 <Ryladog> +1
16:26:48 <Wayne> +1
16:26:48 <Glenda> +1
16:26:50 <Greg> +1
16:26:50 <laura> +1
16:26:51 <Makoto> +1
16:26:57 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:27:03 <bruce_bailey> Johs:  please give your plus ones if ready to go forward as outlined
16:27:14 <Joshue108> q?
16:27:14 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:27:17 <AWK> q+
16:27:19 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:27:22 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:27:24 <AWK> ack AWK
16:27:28 <bruce_bailey> s/Johs:/Josh:
16:27:54 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Immediate ask is to go look at proposals and sign up for no more than two.
16:28:20 <bruce_bailey> .. Un-sign please if you have volunteered for more than two
16:28:41 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
16:28:49 <bruce_bailey> DM:  How we get through with 60 with only two ?
16:29:17 <bruce_bailey> Josh: Just start with two, get those cycled, and sign up for two more.
16:29:36 <bruce_bailey> .. goal is have focus
16:30:04 <bruce_bailey> David has volunteered for four, so Josh ask him to unsign for two.
16:30:14 <laura> I will unsign up for the ones that I was the driver on and pick a new 1 or 2.
16:30:29 <marcjohlic> q+
16:30:34 <AWK> ack m
16:30:35 <bruce_bailey> Laura says she we unsign from the ones she wanted to lead because she is too close to them.
16:30:36 <Joshue108> ack marc
16:31:31 <bruce_bailey> Marc Johlic, AWK, MichaelC check on GitHub assignment.
16:31:43 <bruce_bailey> Intent was for people to be able to self-asign.
16:31:49 <Joshue108> q?
16:31:54 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html laura
16:31:56 <bruce_bailey> Marc and Katie report not being able to make assignment.
16:32:25 <bruce_bailey> AWK and MichaelC will check on that.
16:32:49 <Joshue108> q?
16:32:53 <bruce_bailey> Meanwhile, chairs have to make assignments.  Send email to Josh and/or Andrew.
16:33:00 <bruce_bailey> Zakim, next item
16:33:00 <Zakim> agendum 3. "New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:33:20 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
16:33:20 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
16:33:21 <Zakim> 3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
16:33:34 <Joshue108> agenda+ Charter
16:33:39 <Joshue108> zakim, next item
16:33:39 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, Joshue108
16:33:40 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
16:34:08 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC reports that Git Hub does *not* allow self-assignment
16:34:35 <Joshue108> TOPIC: Update on charter discussion
16:34:39 <bruce_bailey> .. so ask AWK and Josh if you want to be SC manager
16:34:56 <bruce_bailey> MikeE also suggest putting your name on in the comments
16:35:24 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Comments fall into a few classes
16:35:44 <bruce_bailey> ..five comments asking for Digital Publishers to be included
16:36:01 <bruce_bailey> ..other commenters want korean group included
16:36:12 <bruce_bailey> ..other commenter for coordination with PF
16:36:25 <bruce_bailey> .. many are administrative,
16:36:35 <bruce_bailey> 36 responses, 3 formal responses
16:36:43 <bruce_bailey> 3 formal objections
16:36:54 <bruce_bailey> chairs are following up
16:37:13 <bruce_bailey> ..request for mobile to be more promient
16:37:25 <bruce_bailey> ..request for coordination with human factors
16:37:44 <bruce_bailey> .. comments that mobile should be primary objective
16:37:59 <Joshue108> q?
16:38:00 <bruce_bailey> .. chairs feel equally strongly regarding LV and COGA
16:38:55 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  there are bunch of issue have likely for easy success,
16:39:09 <bruce_bailey> .. but a few core issues that will take longer to resolve
16:39:36 <bruce_bailey> .. incubation, and where silver work should be happening will take some effort to resolve
16:39:42 <MichaelC> q+
16:39:42 <Wilco> +q
16:39:49 <Ryladog> q+
16:40:01 <bruce_bailey> .. charter proposal was fairly open
16:40:11 <MichaelC> q+ to note Silver isn´t fully incubation, it´s an up-version, though there are incubator aspects
16:40:21 <Mike_Elledge> q+
16:40:32 <bruce_bailey> .. charter needs to be amended to address needs of WG member goals and addressing formal objections
16:40:48 <Joshue108> ack mich
16:40:48 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to note Silver isn´t fully incubation, it´s an up-version, though there are incubator aspects
16:41:02 <bruce_bailey> .. AWK asks people to comment on where silver incubation should be happening
16:41:16 <AWK> ACTF = Accessibility Conformance Testing Framework
16:41:42 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC does not feel silver is "incubator" since it is an up version, but understands incubator arguement
16:41:47 <Joshue108> ack ryla
16:41:48 <David-MacDonald> q+
16:42:07 <bruce_bailey> ACTF work is also an issue
16:42:24 <bruce_bailey> Katie speaks on supporting ACTF in domain of WG
16:42:47 <bruce_bailey> Katie would rather WG lose Silver thand ACTF, but would like both to stay
16:42:57 <Joshue108> ack wilco
16:43:29 <bruce_bailey> Wilco:  ACTF has been in a community group for two years
16:44:10 <bruce_bailey> .. work has gone through extensive development, ready to be picked up by WG.  not much more to be done in community group
16:44:38 <Joshue108> ack mike
16:44:47 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Confirms that community groups have done well, done lots of work, but ready for next phase.  Wilco concures.
16:45:06 <AWK> s/concures/concurs
16:45:15 <bruce_bailey> MikeE asks for more clarification as to why these two issues are contentious
16:45:48 <bruce_bailey> Josh's read is that there is concern that they need more development before being taken up by GL WG
16:46:42 <bruce_bailey> Josh respects ACTF work, but there is lots of other work going on outside community group.
16:47:10 <bruce_bailey> AWK: Large concern as to what standards work should look like.
16:47:37 <bruce_bailey> .. w3c is trying to decide the official policy, it is all an open question right now
16:47:51 <Joshue108> q?
16:48:04 <bruce_bailey> .. member voting on charter make their possition known through the current charter process
16:48:26 <bruce_bailey> .. some people want activies to be 18 months top
16:48:44 <bruce_bailey> .. others are comfortable with longer term projects
16:49:13 <bruce_bailey> MikeE summaries well.
16:49:17 <Joshue108> ack Dav
16:49:35 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  some pressure for WG to lean and mean
16:50:43 <bruce_bailey> David-MacDonald:  Feels like Silver group was not open enough to legacy opinion
16:51:05 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC disagrees
16:51:45 <AWK> q+ to talk about "wiping the slate clean"
16:51:53 <bruce_bailey> DM: emphasis seems to be on research, silver could be a fresh start
16:52:21 <Ryladog> FYI....My position, as AC Rep for Knowbility is, "one size does'nt fit all" for time boxing all new specs to 18 months (or less) is NOT a good idea, especially as it relates to spec taken up in laws around the world
16:52:39 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne confirms that there is lots on the plate for Silver.  Revolutionary structure, but evolutionary requirements
16:53:00 <AWK> q- as Jeanne said what I was going to say
16:53:01 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  needs to be based on the research, but not throwing out WCAG 2.0
16:53:04 <AWK> q-
16:53:14 <AWK> AWK: Jeanne said what I was going to say
16:53:28 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about impacts on incubation
16:53:58 <MichaelC> q+ to say don´t want to presuppose the end results
16:53:58 <bruce_bailey> MD:  WCAG audience is tens of thousands, UAAG is audience of hundreds.  How can they be wrapped together?
16:54:09 <Wayne> q+
16:54:18 <AWK> q+ to talk about whether we are creating a new UAAG or not. (we are not)
16:54:18 <bruce_bailey> s/MD:/DM:
16:55:05 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Silver TF trying not to prejudge, so UAAG and ATAG an open question
16:55:14 <MichaelC> ack me
16:55:14 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about impacts on incubation and to say don´t want to presuppose the end results
16:55:27 <Joshue108> q?
16:55:29 <bruce_bailey> .. Silver to be based on researh.
16:55:53 <bruce_bailey> .. if the work does not happen in GL WG, can WG be comfortable with that?
16:56:18 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #wai-wcag
16:56:37 <bruce_bailey> DM: We need to be focuse on 2.1, we feel pressure to get something in 18 months
16:56:53 <bruce_bailey> 63 sc in three weeks will be touch enough
16:57:02 <Ryladog> q+
16:57:07 <Wayne> +1
16:57:27 <Joshue108> ack way
16:57:35 <bruce_bailey> MC and DM agree that DM concern is that Silver in WG should not slow up 2.1 work
16:58:06 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
16:58:13 <bruce_bailey> Wayne:  Silver has not put alot of new things on the table
16:58:40 <bruce_bailey> .. needs for LV folks can only be address by talking about UA issues
16:58:59 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne affirm her personal commitment to Silver for LV accessiblity
16:59:00 <jon_avila> agree with wayne
16:59:50 <bruce_bailey> Wayne agrees with David that 2.1 is larger priority
17:00:08 <bruce_bailey> s/larger/more immediate/
17:00:17 <Joshue108> ack awk
17:00:17 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about whether we are creating a new UAAG or not. (we are not)
17:00:36 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Chairs are keenly aware of all the work that needs to be done.
17:01:32 <bruce_bailey> AWK: Agrees that alot of the comments on the charter were around UAAG/ATAAG issues.  There may be other ways to get to the same endpoint.
17:02:07 <Joshue108> q?
17:02:13 <bruce_bailey> ..there are complications related to UA and AT and platforms.  Ultimate Silver should make think about how we approach guidelines
17:02:43 <Joshue108> ack ryla
17:02:47 <bruce_bailey> .. Silver is definately in incubation phase because we are doing researcher.  It is a good time to comment if you have concern with direction.
17:03:22 <AWK> s/doing researcher/doing a lot of background research
17:04:24 <bruce_bailey> Katie:  If the charter dicussion is going to delay our work on 2.1, that itself conflicts with getting 2.1 work completed in the timeline we are being asked to meet
17:04:56 <bruce_bailey> .. quality of 2.1 more important than fast.
17:05:43 <Ryladog> I agree with Josh
17:05:51 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  We are not working on UAAG or ATAG, but Silver is taking big look at what UA and AT can do to unburden the content authors
17:05:59 <Joshue108> q?
17:06:13 <bruce_bailey> .. very reasonable to have this considerion in scope for Silver.
17:06:27 <bruce_bailey> ..We hope charter discussion will be wrapped up soon.
17:07:06 <Glenda> not sure
17:07:10 <gowerm> not sure
17:07:10 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  Hear people saying that WG is comfortable focusing on 2.1 and let Silver be in community group.
17:07:12 <Mike_Elledge> q+
17:07:20 <laura> not sure
17:07:23 <Wilco> I'd like to hear Jeanne's position on this
17:07:24 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Do people disagree or are not sure?
17:07:26 <Makoto> not sure
17:07:28 <Joshue108> ack mike
17:07:42 <Jim_Smith> Jim_Smith has joined #wai-wcag
17:07:59 <bruce_bailey> Silver being in a community does NOT relieve any WG time pressures
17:08:45 <bruce_bailey> Katie asks same question about ACTF work?
17:09:10 <Ryladog> ACT should stay as a TF
17:09:16 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Are people okay with ACTF geing in a community group?
17:09:20 <Wilco> I think it should be in WCAG WG
17:09:40 <Ryladog> Not OK with moving ACT to Community Group
17:09:43 <bruce_bailey> s/geing/being/
17:10:11 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  ACTF has been in community group, so it seems like it is ready to progress.
17:10:33 <David-MacDonald> q+
17:10:40 <bruce_bailey> q+ to ask if these should be survey questions
17:10:57 <Joshue108> ack david
17:10:58 <bruce_bailey> Josh: Question is a little different
17:12:07 <bruce_bailey> DM:  Feels irreconsible conflict between work and deadlines
17:12:13 <Joshue108> ack bruce
17:12:13 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if these should be survey questions
17:12:32 <Joshue108> Bruce: These are serious questions, and should be on a survey.
17:12:54 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  WG will be approving charter.
17:13:06 <bruce_bailey> .. chairs need to take the temperature
17:13:24 <bruce_bailey> .. will not be making these decission on the call today
17:13:40 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Useful to hear peoples opinion
17:14:08 <bruce_bailey> .. silver work and actf work are quite differnt
17:14:30 <bruce_bailey> .. reality is that wg may need to make choices
17:14:49 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
17:14:49 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
17:14:50 <Zakim> 3. New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ [from Joshue108]
17:14:50 <Zakim> 4. Charter [from Joshue108]
17:15:04 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up item 3
17:15:04 <Zakim> agendum 3. "New SC proposals: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/" taken up [from Joshue108]
17:15:20 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
17:16:02 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  these will be coming through fast, many sc queued up, ready for discussion once charter is wrapped up
17:16:03 <Joshue108> Closed https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/3
17:16:30 <bruce_bailey> Discussing issue 2, Programmatic notification is provided for each change in content
17:16:33 <Joshue108> Lets talk about this one https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/2
17:17:25 <bruce_bailey> Wayne:  Need more time to review comments in githum
17:17:39 <bruce_bailey> s/githum/github/
17:18:15 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  In terms of overview, seems pretty possitive.  11 accepts in whole, 8 in principle w/ changes
17:18:47 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  We can let wayne manage
17:18:55 <Joshue108> q?
17:19:05 <bruce_bailey> AWK ask David to discuss related COGO issue.
17:19:25 <bruce_bailey> David:  I added exception to address James' comments and question about COGA 54
17:20:00 <bruce_bailey> .. this question is about programatic notification, e.g. notification from shopping cart.  Something changed on the page, how does the LV or blind user know?
17:20:45 <Ryladog> q+
17:20:48 <Joshue108> q+ to say will I add the COGA label to this also?
17:20:49 <bruce_bailey> .. number of terms of COGA 54 which may or may not be accepted, but see note 6 about programmatic and visual feedback
17:21:07 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/54
17:21:16 <Joshue108> ack ry
17:21:32 <bruce_bailey> .. objective with DM edit is to incorporate some COGA objectives into this SC
17:22:08 <bruce_bailey> Katie:  Sees updates might not be initiated by user, so would like issues to remain separate
17:22:42 <bruce_bailey> DM: Argues for overlap, since both are page updates.
17:23:20 <bruce_bailey> Katie argues for keeping separate, because user-initiated action is so discrete.
17:23:27 <AWK> q+
17:23:36 <adam_solomon> q+
17:24:01 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Is this a COGA issues, should label be assigned to this item?
17:24:15 <AWK> Wayne and Rachel (SC managers for #2 and #54, respectively) should talk
17:24:34 <Joshue108> ack me
17:24:34 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say will I add the COGA label to this also?
17:24:36 <AWK> ... and decide if these should be merged
17:24:38 <bruce_bailey> DM:  Sees SC as focused on page change, not user action or not.
17:25:07 <Joshue108> ack awk
17:25:19 <bruce_bailey> DM clarifies that he has not seen overlap with LV tf sc.
17:25:57 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Wayne and Rachel should decide if issues should be merged.
17:26:52 <bruce_bailey> AWK and DM discuss example of what would not be covered.
17:27:02 <Iisa> Iisa has joined #wai-wcag
17:27:15 <gowerm> q+
17:27:23 <Iisa> Q+
17:27:45 <bruce_bailey> DM:  loading content very import, gave a couple example with form changing content of page base on user action
17:27:57 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
17:27:57 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
17:28:07 <Iisa> Some one will need to unmute me
17:28:27 <Joshue108> we shall try
17:28:30 <Iisa> Q+
17:28:35 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  may need a defintion of control.  Davids examples are about componenets of page.
17:28:52 <bruce_bailey> .. If we can address need without new SC, that is good.
17:29:03 <Iisa> Present+ lisa
17:29:13 <Joshue108> ack adam
17:29:24 <bruce_bailey> AWK and Josh ask for clear definition of control vs component before revisit
17:30:08 <bruce_bailey> Adam:  Are example only for client side interaction.
17:30:24 <jamesn> q+
17:30:40 <bruce_bailey> DM:  Had detail about "after page load" in one place, so phrasing may be reused.
17:30:59 <Joshue108> Andrews right, we don't have a definition for control.
17:31:11 <Joshue108> ack gow
17:31:20 <bruce_bailey> Discussion about post back.  URL is not changing, so need to be clear about refresh or new infomation
17:32:09 <AWK> ack I
17:32:10 <bruce_bailey> James:  Page load currently addressed by 1.3.1.  There is visual queue, so just need a technique for clarification
17:32:34 <Wilco> +1 1.3.1 does not involve notifications
17:32:48 <bruce_bailey> DM:  Disagress that 1.3.1 explictely fails change in content
17:33:09 <bruce_bailey> Jame:  Issue three closed was about issue notification
17:33:25 <laura> rrsagent, make minutes
17:33:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html laura
17:33:48 <bruce_bailey> DM:  Notification is on other end of DOM tree, so could be missed.
17:34:07 <bruce_bailey> rrsagen, make minutes
17:34:15 <bruce_bailey> rrsagent, make minutes
17:34:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html bruce_bailey
17:35:15 <bruce_bailey> Lisa:  requirements around notification are well addressed
17:35:45 <bruce_bailey> .. GOCA sc include visual notification in the main modality
17:36:01 <bruce_bailey> .. use case might be able to be addressed by notes
17:36:28 <bruce_bailey> .. don't want to lose sc, but a couple use cases might be covered by current sc
17:36:53 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  please do sign up to manage sc
17:36:56 <Mike_Elledge> Bye all!
17:37:10 <bruce_bailey> trackbot, end meeting
17:37:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:37:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, Srini, adam_solomon, Wilco, Laura, Makoto, KimD,
17:37:13 <Zakim> ... Mike, Elledge, Glenda, Katie_Haritos-Shea, David-MacDonald, Wayne, jon_avila, MikeGower, lisa
17:37:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:37:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:37:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:37:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:37:22 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the call?
17:37:22 <Zakim> Present: MichaelC, Jeanne, Sarah, Lauriat, Rachael, Bruce_Bailey, mattg, marcjohlic, Greg_Lowney, Srini, adam_solomon, Wilco, Laura, Makoto, KimD, Mike, Elledge, Glenda,