<Rachael> scribe: ad hoc

<stevelee> +1

<shadi> +1 to regular meeting with full-representation

+1 on scribing

AG Working Group Updates

Rachael: Chairs met in virtual F2F
... Alastair will focus mostly on WCAG 2.2 and WCAG2ICT. Chuck will assist Silver, Rachael will assist all others.
... I would like to join calls periodically.
... We are working on processes. I'll send out survey on process improvements.
... Timeline, 2.2 Dec-March timeframes, depends on issues. Working through CFCs
... Shifting to issue management.

Steve: When's final release?

Rachael: Dec-Mar

Task force check in

Shadi: Setup is great. Let me know if there's anything from ACT we can provide.
... Cross group coordination very important.
... published 5 rules, with pipeline of 70 rules in queue

Rachael: Anything from AG to help process 70?

Shadi: Most are in works. We hope to get ACT rules integrated into guidance.

Steve: +1 to Shadi and organized colaboration
... Finding help got through to next stage.
... Having someone who reps both AG and Coga helpful.

<Rachael> ?

<Rachael> Rachael: Low vision doesn't have representation

Kim: +1 on coordination and cross group coordination.

Rachael: Did Alastair get info on SC for example?

Kim: back in your court

Jeanne: Silver brought editors draft in AGWG early in year. Didn't pass AG.
... Now we have approved list of MVP for publishing, approved by AGWG. Now fulfilling list.
... Hoping for editors draft in August.
... Sub groups are working on drafting guidelines, all good ideas.
... Struggling on conformance side.
... Dealing with participants with some objections.
... Shadi, we would love to work with ACT, you are brought up every call. Can we get links to 70 rules under development?

<shadi> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/

Jeanne: New rules?

Shadi: Adding to these

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/

Steve: There's a lot here.

<shadi> +1 to using queue

Rachael: does it make sense for Silver and ACT to brainstorm together?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask how those gaps are being captured and suggest a silver/act brainstorming session

Jeanne: I'd love to have once we determine some essentials.
... I'd want boundaries, like input sponsored by 3 people. We can't afford to redo past work. That's a struggle.
... Small group to work out details is best.

<jeanne> I don't mind redoing past work if it's wrong. I just don't like that people immediately want to start over as a first step before understanding what the group is working on.

Steve: Can AG help with Silver membership and some objections being raised and how that impacts pace?

Chuck: Actively working it.

MichaelC: increased coordination can help. Adding after the fact could be "bolt on".

Task force decision making policy

MichaelC: WG has decision policy, in place for years. Describes how we measure and record consensus.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

MichaelC: Balances things out.
... TF's should also have decision policies. Chairs propose 2 options. TF creates its own decision policy. Could be different from WG, but WG needs to approve.
... another option is to adopt WG decision policy. It's very formal at certain steps. TF's may not want all that overhead.

Rachael: If TF creates own, need to decide how to determine consensus, record objections, etc.

Shadi: We have a process that is not documented. We recognize we are doing on behalf of AG. We have internal reviews before bringing content to WG.
... We do use survey and cfc.
... I welcome it, will talk with peer facilitators.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to respectfully ask that AG re-examine their decision policy so that AG members who are unfamilar with task force work can block Task Force work.

Jeanne: I think it's a great idea. Hope it helps with some challenges to get work moving forward.
... I would like to respectfully ask AG group to examine their policy, so that the work that the task force does doesn't get over-ridden by participants in AG who aren't familiar with content.
... Work shouldn't be denied because of unfamiliarity with topic.

MichaelC: I agree that it's reasonable to re-open WG decision policy. I think concern you raise is more a concern of procedure than policy. I don't think we can have a policy of just accepting task for input. I agree we need to improve procedures.
... Hopefully people respect discussions that have already occurred.

<Rachael> ACTION: discuss decision policy at AG level as well

<trackbot> Error finding 'discuss'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.

Shadi: Taking ACT hat off. As W3C staff who's been here for a while. One of the mistakes that we did in the past WCAG-EM TF was we silo'd too much. We'd have discussions in TF....
... We would bring to main group, re-hash. One of reasons is we didn't bring back work often enough.
... WG wasn't aware of what we were doing. Bringing in new content restarted conversations. This meeting can be a good meeting going for the exchange of info.
... WCAG eval methodology group was smaller. Jeanne's group is much larger.
... Getting engaged early is beneficial.

Kim: Echo what Jeanne and Shadi said. Some tactical things. Is there a document with the policy?

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

Kim: We talked about a google doc that would help TF with what to do and what's expected. A coordination doc?

Rachael: Explore in next meeting.

Kim: Circles we go in sometimes, keeping people motivated, and someone with a little less expertise in an area offers some objections... hard to connect issues and there needs to be an understanding that the task force may have deeper expertise.
... If there was some documentation to avoid having to re-hash, that might help some other things.

Rachael: Can you come back next meeting which direction you will take for consensus process?

Shadi: I think it's possible.

<Rachael> Straw Poll: Can you come back with the direction your group will take on the decision policy in August?

<jeanne> +1

<Rachael> +1

<stevelee> +1

<Kim_Patch> +1

Rachael: We'll aim for that.

Next meeting Task force work statements

Rachael: observations. content based task forces (coga, low vision, mobile) have docs that have not been updated in a while.
... What is your vision for the next year? It's great if we all know the directions.
... q1: Do you feel there's enough work to sustain TF?
... q2: Should gap analysis be updated? We will need to have conversation about possible 2.3.
... Will email all questions to group.

<Rachael> q3: What SC are there that would fit in a 2.x structure and are not in by 2.2?

Kim: All good questions.

<Rachael> q4: What are intersection points with other groups?

Rachael: Any other good questions to include?

<Rachael> q5: Challenges and potential overlaps between groups??

Steve: Good starting point.
... Encourage as many people as possible for next meeting.

Rachael: Content and context of this meeting is changing and becoming more rich.

<shadi> +1 to facilitator engagement

Kathy: How about meeting invites?

Michael: I don't have tool, and zoom created dosen't work out well.

Kathy: We are on office 365 and zoom, and that is pretty easy.

<Rachael> Who here woudl benefit from an invitation?

Michael: Works case by case, but systemic... I don't use invites myself. Maybe a priority for others, and I can escalate.

+1

<Rachael> +1

<jeanne> -1 - my email struggles with it.

<Rachael> Kathy +1

<stevelee> +1

<Kim_Patch> +1

<Rachael> Kathy present+

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/in past TF/in the past WCAG-EM TF/
Succeeded: s/It's possible/I think it's possible/
Succeeded: s/q5;/q5:/
Default Present: Chuck, shadi, Rachael, jeanne, MichaelC, Kathy, Kim_Patch
Present: Chuck shadi Rachael jeanne MichaelC Kathy Kim_Patch
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Scribe: ad hoc

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


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: discuss

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)