<maryjojm> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTPAGETITLE/results
maryjo: 2 surveys from maryjo and kathy
... agenda item 2 taken up first
maryjo: look at survey results, both of us answered positively on everything
... for the 2 responses, it's publish as is
... need other responses, so need to extend survey
... due date by a few days
wilco: extend to next Thursday
... another can be opened for xml lang match
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/417
kathy: Trusted Tester implementation added, all results were as expected
shadi: to maryjo, some of your responses were I don't know, should we review?
maryjo: no I don't knows on this survey
shadi: sorry, I misread the results. ok, great 2 people agree
maryjo: we'll keep it open for another week to get more responses
... maybe it'll be our first rule published
wilco: yesterday, an editorial was made to page title rule
... a note from expectation 1 was removed because it was a duplicate
maryjo: that sounds reasonable
<maryjojm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/418
shadi: I put editorial suggestions in the pull request. I hope they are editorial
<maryjojm> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/418/commits/b279f4e375ced3aa703b62eb37121cfc73bad269
maryjo: that link is your updates
shadi: there was heavy rewording in intro. I tried not to change any meaning.
... trying to be clearer. just suggestions.
... "propose" and "submitted" were used interchangeably
... tried to use "submit" more consistently. rule provider "submits" and task force "proposes"
wilco and maryjo: like this change
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to talk about "individual rule providers"
wilco: original draft only mentions "organizations". not sure to consider individuals as rule providers
... individual doesn't have a review process to get to acceptable quality
shadi: in the past, individuals have participated without an organization to back them
... an "entity"?
maryjo: "group" is fine. "entity" could be a single person
wilco: "organizations" or "groups"
... leave it for now and see if it works
shadi: licensing: cannot have a rule published by W3C and owned by other
... whomever contributes the rule, sign an agreement: if W3C publishes, it must be royalty free so others can use it
... W3C has its own licensing
... once group accepts rule, rule provider must submit a license agreement so content is under W3C ownershop so rule can be updated
... when a fork of the rule made by W3C is necessary
kasper: owner of copyright can grant permissions
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-testcases.html
shadi: W3C would work similar to above link
wilco: need a clear W3C license for submissions
... include it in screening
... who in community group can sign that agreement?
shadi: work of community group has an open license
wilco: so anyone can sign it?
shadi: yes but will double check
wilco: the person who submits the rule has to have copyright or license?
kasper: only the copyright holder can grant a copyright license, which is what W3C requires
... could be the author or organization rep
shadi: for the task force, it is W3C is the license owner
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
shadi: W3C contributor license agreement link
... under 2: agreement grants a license to W3C for work. no patent of that work.
wilco: thought license was different
shadi: W3C has several licenses, community group license is very open
wilco: so W3C holds license for ACT-R work
shadi: license allows a submitter to just submit a rule, or first need to check if a submitter can submit the rule for the organization
kasper: definition of "you" and "your" at the bottom, signee can grant permission to anyone/anywhere
shadi: in this case, it to W3C
wilco: asking for license is still correct, what's the current license
... second part, how to determine if submitter can submit the rule on behalf of organization
... either AG member, under a license that allows it
shadi: or a non-member will need additional checking
wilco: change needed to proposal?
maryjo: is it needed in the survey of the rule?
wilco: submission requires license info
... I can add that to screening section, but not needed in survey
... good topic for next week
maryjo: topic: add licensing to screening section
wilco: and format. template and pull request would be good
<maryjojm> What format we want the submission in - a pull request using the template, probably