Silver Community Group Teleconference

14 Jun 2019


jeanne, JF, johnkirkwood, CharlesHall, KimD, Cyborg, LuisG, Jan, bruce_bailey
Shawn, Makoto, Chris, Denis, Angela


Lessons from AGWG process that we want to incorporate

Jeanne: like to talk about the AGWG proces we want to takeup
... like to talk about the silver timeline

JF: guilty as charged

Jeanne: like to talk about that first

JF: less about the process
... anyone have draft charter?

BB: Charter for Silver?

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2019/charter.html

JF: AG working group, my concern is about the timeline
... candidate recommendation to recommendation in 6 months
... not realistic 18 months for addressing external feedback
... this new thing is a reimagination of what we are doing which will generate a ton of feedback needing tons of explanation
... it will be a struggle to get done between November and April 2022 not realistic

<CharlesHall> i see 24 months from Editor Draft to Candidate Recommendation. a, I reading this incorrectly?

<JF> Timeline November 2019: First Public Working Draft of Silver November 2019: First Public Working Draft of WCAG 2.2 May 2020: WCAG 2.2 Candidate Recommendation November 2020: WCAG 2.2 Recommendation November 2021: Silver Candidate Recommendation April 2022: Silver Recommendation

<CharlesHall> November 2019: First Public Working Draft of Silver ยป November 2021: Silver Candidate Recommendation

CA: don't have John's experience don't think we have migrated enough to silver model

JF: what efforts we have run into a lot of complex questions
... thought points would be extremely fluid
... example 95 percent points on an image, adding pages alt text point goes down. constantly changing point value buckets. my assumption would be that point would be fluid
... making candidate recommendations by fall is aggressive and feedback is unrealistic
... hard questions still need to be resolved and COGA related things
... even 2.x into silver framework will be diffiucult rather under promise and over deliver

Jeanne: do you have another proposal for timeframe?

JF: canditat recommentadtion spring summer of 2022
... septmeber 2022 gives us 18 months for candidate recommendation
... want to be able to incorporate lots of feedback
... testing, understanding, language, architecture, we're familiar with it. some don't fully understand it. some think its going to be easy.
... evidence says not going to be easy

Jeanne: see our timeline i see migrating 2.x for the next 9 month and then having a year to work on new material

JF: month 6 takes us to MArch 2020
... another year 5rto march 2021

Jeanne: i do agree comment period needs to be done properly to check math.

<JF> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#Reports

CH: I understand the dilema of incoproate comments along the way?

Jeanne: some companies don't comment until gets to cndidate recommendation

CH: so regardless we need amount of time fixed? after candidate recommendation

JF: i posted timeline
... signal to wider community for review, gather implementation experience

Jeanne: the examples won't be difficult
... we need to get implementation examples in advance
... think we can do better learn from that

JF: candidate recommendation its a mininmum of 3 months for patent
... policy
... to try to do candidate to proposed rec no time to answer all the things

Jeanne: let me look at timeline again

JF: 2.3 for timeline
... sticking point is the timeline

Jeanne: march 2021, might be a date math problem.

JF: I am more concerned, the time calculation doesn't fully make sense

Jeanne: we had it all layed out and we were fixing mistakes not sure if it turned out
... lets get everyones concerns out. and shawn and i can make sure everyone's concerns are addresssed

BB: I'd like to see the propsed recommendcation as well

JF: 6 months is unrealistic

BB: optimistic

Jeanne: proposed 18 months to do that whole package

JF: candidate recommendation by 2012 18 months is 2023

Jeann: spend a year until Csun 2022 new conttent. then go to candidate recommendation 2021

JF: i think scheduling is overly optimistic

Jeanne: which part?

JF: the whole writing part
... we haven't addressed the points, speed is slow

Jeanne: we keep addressing conformance

JF: believe it will take longer than estimated. rather under promise in the charter
... nothing by end of next charter, then bought yourself a year
... much rather be saying that

Jeanne: run me through the dates for next charter

JF: proposed its going to be. three year charter

Jeanne: has to be a two year charter

JF: rther no be constrained into a really tight frmework, over delivering is a good thing
... its not about the value of work its about the timeline

Jeanne: if we are going to say that its going to be that much longer than two years then incubation

CA: no clue about in incubation means

Jeanne: when we charter its part of W3C strict timelines
... if in community group we are not subject to timelines
... Shawn and I have discussed staying in community group

JF: its also a task force

CA: I can't possibly understand, impact

JF: anything that needs to be incubated should stay in community group.
... timeline in draft charter produce evidence. first publish 2.2. ready by November 2020. The charter tislef will go 2022. WCAG 2.3 in a two year timeframe. desire to turn more forces to Silver
... other thing November this year public working draft. november 2021 cndidate recommendation after that 6 months

Janne: shouldn't be novmber 2021 should be March 2021

JF: like to see it ready for April 2022. don't have to do in current charter roll into next

Jeanne: start with basics. can we move WCAG content in 9 months

JF: not comforable

CA: not comfortable

JF: double that

CA: larger timefram needed

Cybel: to break down task based component based how long that take and how long to scale up
... shock me if got first part through end of summer

<CharlesHall> can we simply address the landmine head-on and remove any specific Silver timeline from this 2.2 Charter?

JF: my concern as well

CH: putting all work on hold, timeline on hold

Jeanne: think we could do it all, could go directly into first public wokrg draft and have long candidate recommendation iand finish in two years

<JF> The math: Nov. 2019 (+ 18 months for migration) Mar. 2021 Mar. 2021 (+ 18 months for new content) Sep. 2022 Sept. 2022 = Candidate + 18 months for comment processing mar. 2024

Jeanne: if we don't charter now
... that's five years out

JF: I think it's 3-5 years

FG: under promise and over deliver

Jeanne: we could hold to orignal plan of 1 year for new content
... we could hold new content
... barrier of existing content at least gets us into 2023

CA: not sure about 3 versus 5 years

JJF: if going to October 2021 its outside scope, wether its 3 years or 2 years and not part of schedule of AG working group I'm ok with that too

JF: there are other deliverables could be ongoing work without specifying specific W3C process breakpoint
... in two or three years rather give us more runway. would like to beat the deadline
... rather give us the timeline and runway to do it right
... want to publish whats ready and keep moving on evergreen standard
... once published want to see regular updates
... if we do in 12 months great

CA: we are working on like to address a question that affects Cybell and I
... my topic is should Cybell and I work on process or continueing 2.1 migration

Process or WCAG 2.1 Migration?

JF: what do you mean by process?

CA: we have come up with process that think is valuable
... will focus on bringing over color contrast to Silver format
... progress is in a document and what I encountered in bringing the SC inot the silver format. observations and challenges
... should we continue on process or migration?

Jeann: at this point priority is migration

CA: encountered scope creep how could it be best migrate
... lets not add or subtract lets bring it in as is for a pure migration
... in some cases pure is not possible
... which found in migrating color contrast

<CharlesHall> sorry. have to drop off call for prep for next meeting.

<JF> +1 to Bruce, and I'll add that "process" also includes the "points" discussion

BB: can't help but tweek process during migration throug metheds
... process needs to be updated,
... color contrast is the toughest

CA: interested in jumping over to headings, Cybell?

Cybell: thought Jean had done that and revampers

Jeanne: we did not revamp it
... yes this is taking a long time

Cybell: availble monday 5-7pm

JF: leaving

Cybell: can you contribute to item number 3

JF: happy to help, bye

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think developing the process and migrating are interlinked

Cybell: headings and process

<Jan> If you need additional help on Monday, I can be available from 5-7 EST

Cybell: we'll work on

Jeanne: we need data to work with, which we don't have

Cybel: process means reproducability
... clear and simple and lean easy to follow

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/06/14 19:02:03 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Present: jeanne JF johnkirkwood CharlesHall KimD Cyborg LuisG Jan bruce_bailey
Regrets: Shawn Makoto Chris Denis Angela
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: johnkirkwood
Inferring Scribes: johnkirkwood
Found Date: 14 Jun 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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]