Wilco: doing a panel discussion at CSUN
Wilco: We have been somewhat delayed, we are almost ready, just have some editorials and we should be able to get a proposal, get a CFC
Wilco, Get AG to review around 29th of Jan, we be ready for CR the second week of Feb around CSUN timeline
Wilco: Does that sound right Mary Jo?
Mary Jo: Yes
Ann: hoping for us to vote for CFC next week? we need the finished draft early
Wilco: We have everything in pull request
Ann: Last time when we changed and read everything we found a lot of inconsistencies
SS: yes, that way we don't delay
Ann: Ready to review by 17 Jan
SS: send out an email and give some heads up on the review timeline
Mary Jo: i can do that
Ann: We should have both what is conceptually, What is an ACT rule? and then describe
Mary Jo: i think we already have some stuff
Moe: last week we asked Mary Jo to remove the details and just have a reference in the description
Mary Jo: little confused, not sure what you are asking for
Ann: It describes what the overview is, not what is an ACT rule
... i would like the most basic description of what is an ACT rule
Mary Jo: OK
Wilco: few points of discussion not resolved
... As requested i created 2 definations on Accessibility requirements
... its kind of an editorial thing, then leave it as is
Ann: each accessibility requirements must have mapping to the standards SC
... SHould we link it to the SC?
Wilco: yes
... Should we have an explanation of what RGA is? yes we can add a link
Ann: It says rule is part of the accessibility mapping but is does not say it is required for conformance
WIlco: yes i will resolve those
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/313/files#diff-9ac0a6633720a5535b0a53cba04ababeR201
Wilco: reading through the TPAC minutes found something missing, give folks time to read it
... an attempt to address metadata
Ann: this is nice to mention
Wilco: Fix the editorials and this should be ready for CR
Wilco: Changing the composite rules, some editorial comments
Mary Jo: Thats fine
Mary Jo: agree, will make the change
Wilco: 2 we talked about 2, A composite rule that uses results from other composite rules. And another one in the minutes from TPAC
Mary Jo: You prob can do it quickly
Wilco: Ok
Ann: maybe input rules?
Mary Jo: i kind like input rules
Wilco: Mary Jo can you just come up with proposal?
... At TPAC we discussed the applicability of Composite rules, not just the union
<shadi> [[brainstorms: sub-rules, rules in scope, relevant rules, contained rules]]
Wilco: This one may be needs some more thought
Ann: How can that be resolved by using the test subject?
Wilco: i will open a separate issue for applicability and come up with a proposal
... 2 new issues, one to add examples and other to change applicability
... Mary Jo can do the editorials and can merge
Wilco: Do we need one?
... need Romain for this
Shadi: I was going to ask Michael
... W3C is expecting an explainer, kind a summary, synopsis or high level view
<maryjom> Here's an example of an explainer: https://www.w3.org/TR/motion-sensors/
Shadi: More detailed then abstract or introduction
Ann: May be do it for uptake for ACT rules
Shadi: Explainer can make the spec little leaner
Mary Jo: is it a CR requirement?
Shadi: No
Wilco: Shadi can you please reach out to Romain and Michael.