<AWK> +AlastairC

<AWK> +MichaelC

<AWK> +Jim

<AWK> +MaryJo

ACT update

MJ: Trying to get the issue from TPAC resolved, 3 options on the table for tomorrow.
... We need to pick 1, go out and publish a working draft again. Or, if get consensus on something we could go to CR. either way, will publish pretty soon. Therefore there will be an AG review soon.
... would like to publish by CSUN, good for the discussion.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask how much time ACT needs at CSUN?

MJ: Not something to talk about at CSUN, for before that.

Michael: If it is similar to previous version, could be 1 week. If there is some change, plan for 2 weeks with a starting refresher on a call.

AWK: Once AG says it's good, it goes straight away?

Michael: Depends on whether it's a transition or not, good overview would help. After that it's Shadi's task, will depend on him.

AWK: Has it been a wide review draft?

MJ: Yes, last one was wide review.
... for the 3 options, 1 of them would trigger more changes, 2 of them a minor and wouldn't impede progress to CR.

Michael: timings are tight, 19th Feb might be difficult.

AWK: CFC approved for 28th in order to go out on the 7th Mar.

MJ: That also assumes no normative changes, which may not be the case.

<AWK> +Kim

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if it's an updated doc we reviewed at TPAC?

LV / Mob updates

Jim: Poking along, averaging 3-4 people / meeting. Will write to the AG list, see if anyone else could join.

AWK: Talked on Tuesday about potential process changes, timelines. Difficult to get to the decision. Most people's take, not all, but most was that we should be lookin at a 2.2 due to the time until Silver.
... Some aren't confident about 3 year schedule for Silver, but also there is more to do on 2.1. Most agree with those points.
... Also know that we spent 7 years adding techniques & understanding updates.
... Correct to say 2.1 is not completely finished, but should that stop progress?
... will be a survey this week.

Working process: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_working_process

SC acceptance criteria: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criteria_acceptance_requirements

AWK: These hopefully makes it clearer what needs doing, keep the focus.

Kim: Definately need more joint working, with LV+Mob was really useful.

Jim: echo that, taking the different perspectives on interactions, the browser differences, it was fabulous to do that.

Kim: Could have visitors for 1st half of each (TF) call?
... We have 2/3 SCs, and 2/3 techniques to add for 2.2. Also have bunch of stuff marked silver.

SC acceptance criteria: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criteria_acceptance_requirements

Working process: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_working_process

SC acceptance criteria: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criteria_acceptance_requirements

Working process: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_working_process

<MichaelC> trackbot issues that command as well

<trackbot> Sorry, MichaelC, I don't understand 'trackbot issues that command as well'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

trackbot end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/(something)/the issue from TPAC/
Default Present: AWK, AlastairC, MichaelC, Jim, MaryJo, Kim
Present: AWK Kim Jim Alastair Michael
Regrets: Lisa
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: alastairc
Inferring Scribes: alastairc

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 06 Feb 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)