13:41:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:41:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-irc
13:41:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:41:31 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag-act
13:41:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:41:33 <trackbot> Date: 11 September 2017
13:42:21 <maryjom> chair: Mary_Jo_Mueller
13:42:46 <maryjom> agenda+ Upcoming publication of ACT Rules Format working draft
13:43:03 <maryjom> agenda+ ACT Review Process - discussion on level of requirements/detail in the process vs. prevention of making it too burdensome
13:43:28 <maryjom> agenda+ WCAG-ACT rules repository - Need to create a document on how to contribute (volunteers?)
14:02:45 <cpandhi> cpandhi has joined #wcag-act
14:04:41 <skotkjerra> skotkjerra has joined #wcag-act
14:04:53 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
14:06:00 <skotkjerra> present+
14:06:28 <maryjom> present+ MaryJoMueller
14:06:38 <MoeKraft> present+
14:06:57 <anne_thyme> anne_thyme has joined #wcag-act
14:07:09 <anne_thyme> present +
14:07:44 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/Scribing_Instructions
14:08:32 <maryjom> scribe: skotkjerra
14:08:34 <martin_> martin_ has joined #wcag-act
14:08:45 <martin_> present+
14:08:47 <cpandhi> present+
14:10:11 <maryjom> zakim, take up next
14:10:11 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Upcoming publication of ACT Rules Format working draft" taken up [from maryjom]
14:11:24 <MoeKraft> q+
14:11:38 <skotkjerra> Mary-Jo: The public draft is ready to publish, and there are still a few minor things to sort out before it will be published on Wednesday/Thursday
14:12:38 <skotkjerra> Action: Shadi: where are we with the accessibility issues in the draft
14:12:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Where are we with the accessibility issues in the draft [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2017-09-18].
14:13:12 <maryjom> zakim, take up next
14:13:12 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, maryjom
14:13:52 <maryjom> q- MoeKraft
14:14:15 <maryjom> zakim, next item
14:14:15 <Zakim> agendum 2. "ACT Review Process - discussion on level of requirements/detail in the process vs. prevention of making it too burdensome" taken up [from maryjom]
14:14:21 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process
14:15:29 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: Shadi wanted to have a short discussion on the review process - i.e. the process of making sure that the rules are ready for publication as ACT-rules. Contribution, review, review with the AG etc.
14:16:22 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: We have to find the balance between openness and rigourous submission and review process, and wants to know what peoples views are on this
14:18:57 <skotkjerra> Sharu likes the flow where rules go through review, then implemented and then wetted and tested. On the comment: can we reject something? If something doesn't meet the requirements it automatically gets rejected
14:19:58 <skotkjerra> Would we accept something that doesn't contain all the parts from the rule format
14:20:56 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: do we want to document these things in the process document - i.e. potential reasons for not accepting
14:21:00 <skotkjerra> q+
14:21:55 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #wcag-act
14:22:22 <skotkjerra> Stein Erik: Thinks it is important to require a minimum of information to ensure a higher standard to the ocntributions
14:22:40 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: Thinks we should accept only submissions that contain the required parts of the ACT format
14:23:25 <skotkjerra> Sharu: We currently have certain points, but doesn't think they are explicit enough to discard contributions or to decide if they are accurate enough to be accepted
14:23:27 <MoeKraft> s/Sharu/Charu/
14:23:46 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: we need to define a level of requirements for accpetance
14:24:33 <skotkjerra> Action: Shadi: Establish a minimum level of requirements for accepting a contribution
14:24:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Establish a minimum level of requirements for accepting a contribution [on Shadi Abou-Zahra - due 2017-09-18].
14:26:08 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: Shadi didn't put in an action number of implementation. We would need a number of implementations before passing on to the AGWG. Typically for most things in the W3C two implementations are required.
14:27:06 <skotkjerra> Mo: Isn't it two for a success criteria or specification. Should this apply to a rule? It could be accepted as a draft until a second implementation is in place
14:27:59 <skotkjerra> Sharu, Shadis responce is that we should work into the criteria; reasons for acceptance/non-acceptance.
14:29:17 <skotkjerra> Charu: We have to define what lack of quality means
14:29:51 <skotkjerra> Charu: criteria would fall under submission
14:30:27 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: reasons for rejecting could fall under the peer review to know what we are looking for
14:31:02 <skotkjerra> Charu: should go in both. We do not want to waste everyones time if it doesn't conform to certain criteria - also after peer review
14:32:43 <skotkjerra> Anne: does it say anywhere that we are looking for the balance between false positive and false negatives?
14:34:59 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: where the rule make generate more false positives the number of implementation may have to be higher
14:37:10 <skotkjerra> Mo: suggests to include in the maintainance section a clause on the process if implementations of rules show too many false positives/negatives
14:39:14 <skotkjerra> Anne: Going back to adding the reasons to drop a rule if it lacks quality. Should that be its own sections since rules could be dropped at all stages in the process - e.g. in maintainance phase
14:39:42 <skotkjerra> Mo: Instead of deleted we deprecate or quarantine
14:40:33 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: Would be nice to have states of the rule going through this process. By attaching to the rule in submission which state it is in. Are there issues? Is it in implementation etc
14:40:50 <skotkjerra> Anne: Didn't we agree to use tagging for the state rules are in?
14:41:13 <tobias> tobias has joined #wcag-act
14:41:16 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: It should be added to this review process document
14:44:04 <maryjom> zakim, take up next
14:44:04 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, maryjom
14:44:11 <maryjom> q
14:44:21 <maryjom> q?
14:44:32 <maryjom> ack sk
14:44:39 <maryjom> zakim, take up next
14:44:39 <Zakim> agendum 3. "WCAG-ACT rules repository - Need to create a document on how to contribute (volunteers?)" taken up [from maryjom]
14:44:45 <skotkjerra_> skotkjerra_ has joined #wcag-act
14:44:51 <maryjom> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act-rules
14:45:43 <skotkjerra_> MaryJo: Looking for volunteers to expand the README with a section on how to contribute
14:46:01 <skotkjerra_> Mo: We do have a contribute.md for the rules format to use as a guide for the rules
14:46:29 <MoeKraft> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/blob/master/contribute.md
14:48:17 <skotkjerra_> MaryJo: looking for volunteers to ajust this. We would want to point to the review process and define what are the required parts of a rule som submitters will know what we are expecting
14:49:09 <skotkjerra_> Stein Erik: Suggests criteria should be kept in the review process document
14:49:30 <skotkjerra_> Mo: It is important to have a reference to the requirements and keep it fairly short
14:51:17 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: give contributors q pointer to the resources they will need, an example, and anything to make the process simpler. There has to be a balance between "learn by doing" and being to prescriptive
14:53:11 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: TPAC registration still open with a deadline for early registration in October.
14:53:38 <skotkjerra> MaryJo: Our next meeting will be on 18th of September
14:55:07 <MoeKraft> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:55:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-minutes.html MoeKraft
14:56:43 <skotkjerra> Thanks, Mo
14:58:30 <skotkjerra> trackbot end meeting
14:58:30 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:58:30 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been skotkjerra, MaryJoMueller, MoeKraft, martin_, cpandhi, (22, mins, late)
14:58:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:58:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
14:58:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:58:39 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-actions.rdf :
14:58:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Shadi: where are we with the accessibility issues in the draft [1]
14:58:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-irc#T14-12-38
14:58:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Shadi: Establish a minimum level of requirements for accepting a contribution [2]
14:58:39 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/11-wcag-act-irc#T14-24-33