<scribe> scribe: Wilco

<Rachael> zakim present+

Working group check in (Status and what's coming)

RM: WG checkin, we are gearing up for an intense year. Started a draft schedule.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1khFiTP5jZTQ8HE3XzoQqgXYaTSSqTf5HwGZdlGXy7jM/edit

RM: Want us all to agree, then share it next week of possible.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1khFiTP5jZTQ8HE3XzoQqgXYaTSSqTf5HwGZdlGXy7jM/edit

RM: Third column, other, is for the TFs.
... Want you all to know. Are there questions on that?

WF: We could schedule publications of ACT rules.

RM: Yes, especially if we put it in a time where we're not busy publishing WCAG
... There is a note of ongoing and to be schedules. I have ACT rules there. I'm not sure what you'd like to do about putting it on a schedule.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask more a move of Aug 31

JS: I want to talk about merging AG and Silver with Shawn first.

MC: I would like to move things closer, but not a full merger. I don't see disbanding the TF in the planned future.
... We should talk about milestone integration, but not complete group merger

<kim_patch> can you put the url for the doc in again - tx

JS: For August 31st, that's the date for groups working on content to have it done. Having it on the WG on that date would give me no time to get it into GitHub.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1khFiTP5jZTQ8HE3XzoQqgXYaTSSqTf5HwGZdlGXy7jM/edit

JS: Suggest we tell the group to have things done on the 28th, would give me the weekend to get content into GitHub. It would have to be the 1st then.
... lets leave it

LS: How strict is the schedule?

RM: For silver it is strict, the others there is more flexibility. It helps see it all written down

LS: The deadline is what we are hoping for, but if there are huge changes we need to deal with it can slip

MC: We have to make decisions if we have comments about if it's worth breaking the timeline for

RM: Hard dates on the first two columns, more flexibility on "other"

Task force coordination, documentation, and future direction (see questions below)

RM: What do people see as your TF's primary goal for the next year?

<LisaSeemanKest> our priorities are at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Priorities_and_Work

JS: I think our focus for 2021 is moving WCAG SCs into Silver.

LS: For COGA we want to get the doc to note, then improve the glossary and gap analysis. After that I think we want to update the research and see what new papers are needed.
... The research is now 3 years ago, we could update that.

KP: We have silver SC candidates. We have a mobile note, we could do a note for mobile apps. That has been split off. Maybe an assessment of alternative devices.
... In a sense kiosks, IoT, those devices have a lot in common. We could look at those as a group.

<Rachael> Wilco: We've released 3 different things. first to get rules published. only a few published but 60-70 in process.

<Rachael> ...second to do implementation tracking. look at which testing methodologies are following the rules and figure out how to make that visible.

<Rachael> ...third is coordination with Silver. Substantial portion of Silver can support with ACT Rules.

RM: Low-vision is on hiatus, we're going to revisit in the fall.

<kim_patch> q

RM: For the active TFs, how would you like to coordinate moving forward

JS: I've wanted to coordinate more with ACT, but we haven't had enough consensus to share things yet.
... What would be helpful is if you'd be able to attend the deep-dive sessions on aug 11.
... I know in the big picture where this fits.

WF: This is on my calendar. I will attend most of it.

LS: We may not synergise to an optimal level. I want to brainstorm with each, to see what the potentials are.
... It might be good to state what would be optimal.
... Maybe we should have a series of calls to discuss different issues in COGA.

<kim_patch> +

LS: I feel quite out of touch with other groups in my space. That could also be true for the APA space.

<jeanne> +1 to Lisa's idea -- let's set a series of topics for TPAC week and invite all the AGWG and TF and CGs

LS: I know there is a huge overlap, but don't really know what they are doing.
... Also the personalisation group. When I am on this call we're not coordinating with these groups at all. There is a lot of potential there.

KP: I think a "zoom beer" with facilitators would be a good thing. Talking about places where needs clash and we can reinforce each other would be nice.
... What I see missing is some kind of document that keeps track of what is needed from the group, what is coming up, and facilitate us communicating about overlap. If it had questions about other groups, I think that would keep us in touch much easier.

RM: Do we want to do something around TPAC? Do we want it for facilitators only, or open, or through one-on-ones?

JS: Why don't we have a series of topic, have meetings during TPAC and invite anyone from AGWG, TFs, CGs, and work on that topic.
... First topic that comes to mind is how to handle the clash of disability needs.
... I came across some work that identified the problem, but didn't work on a solution.
... Maybe what Kim said, what new mobile work there would be for Silver.
... I think there are topics between the groups that we could maybe identify on a call.

MC: Maybe we don't do it on TPAC, we have a lot of deadlines around then. If this is entirely for AG, we can do it at any time.
... We can negotiate times with APA.

LS: COGA takes issues, such as login in, and have people discuss the kind of problems they have with it. Sometimes it's a COGA use case, but sometimes it's broader.

<jeanne> Plain language in guidelines would be an excellent topic.

LS: Maybe it'd be interested to make that panel bigger, and record it, to discuss user needs.
... From a perspective of understanding people, it's a very human starting point

RM: I've heard two different actions. One is to have informal facilitator meetings. Would you prefer to schedule them on your own, or for us to schedule standard ones.

LS: I would prefer standard meetings.

+1

RM: Any objections to us setting up some of these informal meetings?

WF: Would that include other groups?

RM: I think AG for the first, and then extend it.
... We'll set a few of these up.

<Chuck> +1 after

<jeanne> +1 to after TPAC

RM: Second thing I heard is a day of topics, with a broad invite. Suggestion for during TPAC or after it. I suggest after TPAC, in November.

+1 after

KP: Maybe also some show-and-tell?

RM: No objections to aiming for November.

<jeanne> +1 to show-and-tell

Shared document of challenges

RM: Any thoughts on format? Docs, e-mail?

KP: I think Google docs is the simplest

<Chuck> +1 google doc

LS: that's good

RM: do we e-mail when we add content, do we check it weekly?

KP: I would check before the meeting

<jeanne> wiki with "watch the page"

KP: you could set an alert if something changes in the document.

MC: I'm fine with Google docs, we can refine as we go

JS: Having had issues with long term Google docs, I would suggest a wiki, with "watch the page".
... One of the founders of the Silver project had set up the docs we used. She hasn't participated in years, but she has ownership of the folders. She deleted all the Silver work. We've been trying to reconstruct, change ownership, restore permissions. It has been a huge task.

KP: I would suggest we use docs, set up ownership in advance with a W3C account.

JS: There isn't a W3C account.

KM: You can set up a blank account and give several people permissions.

RM: That makes sense.
... Michael and I can take an action on this.

JS: No objections to Docs, just prefer a wiki.

RM: We'll see how it goes then.

Reminder: Task force decision making policy

RM: How is the decision policy going for everyone?

JS: We've talked about it with Michael, he drafted it.

<MichaelC_downstairs> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/decision-policy-MC/decision-policy/index.html

MC: This is a temporary URI.

JS: We're going to take a discussion vote on Friday, then we'll put it out on survey.

KP: We haven't done much, haven't met during the summer. We're waiting to see what people will come up with.

LS: I don't quite understand

RM: What came out of different conversations is the need for the TFs to have a decision policy. It doesn't need to be as complex as the way the AGWG has it.

LS: I think we need two decision policies; one for big decisions, that's a CFC, and one that's for decisions that can get overturned.
... I think we should have a page that explains how we do these processes.
... There should be a central page for AG that links to the decision pages of the TF.

MJM: We have a rule review process, but not a decision policy

RM: We'll set up a doc, and will share what has been drafted so far.

WF: When could we do a push on ACT rules?

RM: Late Aeptember would be good I think.

MC: Agreed

<Chuck> Late Sept sounds good.

WF: I think that's fine, the longer we wait, the more we'll have.

RM: I'll talk to Alastair if there is a way to do another one in August

LS: I'd love to have a conversation with ACT, maybe there is some way forward to come up with partly testable statements?
... With AG, there are some things in the current draft to rivisit.

RM: lets see about setting up a standing call.

LS: probably better now than right before we publish

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)

Present: Chuck Wilco Rachael stevelee MichaelC jeanne
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco

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: 

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.)