<jeanne> scribe: Sheri_B-H

There is an intern working with Francis - Grady Thompson

Decision Policy and survey results

Sub-group check-in & next steps

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#guidelines-0

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQHgVFaJYS1WWs9BKucZxWboMNVuclvdNqnQuzPbWwY/

Jake - the functional outcomes aren't all written as functional outcomes - lacking in granularity

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#guidelines-0

Text alternatives is in good shape, but how to only has "get started"

Makoto will work on finishing more methods this week

Rachel - more methods and functional outcomes is higher priority than other areas

but should complete one how to

Jake - functional outcomes are normative, they should be tested

Jake - proposes that testing for the functional outcome be included. if the method provides that testing, that's fine

Jake - gaps must be filled by having tests for functional outcomes

<Rachael> q

Jake - clarification - if you have a method that is technology specific, it should be part of a technology agnostic test rules that apply to the functional outcome.

<Rachael> +1 Jake. That makes sense.

Jeanne (as an individual) we talked about this in April, we agreed it was possible, but thought it was difficult to implement while being open to non-web and emerging technologies, so it was postponed.

Jeanne - could be included via holistic testing

Jeanne- pushed off to silver - gold work, which is for 2nd WD

Jake - writing the tests is easier if you look at what the user needs and not the technology

Jeanne - can't be done by Friday

Jake - start by rewording the methods to make them technology-agnostic

Sarah also offered to look at it by Friday

Sarah had proposed PFL for outcomes, which might get us to a good outcome

<jeanne> Functional Accounts https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#guidelines-0

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1il6k1GA4Y6Om00y8kZDrn-UUC-3DKM3nA39c0kYpzS4/edit#gid=0

Jeanne needs to update that doc

Jeanne, I can update headings

Jeanne does not want to introduce another architectural change this late in the game

Jake thinks it is crucial because otherwise the scoring doesn't work

<Lauriat> +1 to that point, but we can/should have the current level of tests accomplish this.

<jeanne> +1 to a editor note

<JakeAbma> BIG +1 to Rachael

Shawn - we should not have tests that are too technology specific

<Zakim> mikecrabb, you wanted to comment on old silver 'flavor' prototype

<mikecrabb> https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/FlavorPrototype/site/1-1-1/aria.html

shawn - we do have this layer, we just need to write tests to the correct level

Mike - is this not related to flavors which was discussed a couple of years ago?

Shawn - some areas (clear language) have no technology

Shawn - others like headings, it doesn't matter how you build them as long as it gets built

<sarahhorton> +1

Rachel, Jake, Sheri, Sarah - meet this week, Rachel will own getting it into Git

Rachael*

Rachael will send an invitation to the list

Jeanne - asked subgroup chairs to review functional outcomes and make sure they follow the guidelines

Decision Policy and survey results

Jeanne will reach out to Jan to ask her to do that for Clear Language

meeting on Friday?

Friday is a VMware holiday

Shawn - google has also

and wherever Michael works :-)

Rachael is available

consensus is yes to Friday meeting

<jeanne> We will have a Friday meeting to work on the new proposal to include generic methods

with some known absentees

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd/?login

Survey & AG WG call reminder

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd/

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag

reminder to take survey and attend the AGWG call

Decision Policy and survey results

back to item 2, decision policy

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

<jeanne> questionaire results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/2020-08-decision-policy/results

MichaelCooper - there may be a google doc floating around which is more up to date

Jeanne - plain language version exists but got lost, she will look for it after the meeting

Glenda here to address comments on John's behalf

Glenda - Deque is worried about using google docs for official decisions, because history is not searchable

Michael Cooper - we do need to improve traceability, but behavior around google docs should address some of it (Michael let me know if I didn't summarize that correctly)

Glenda - call for objections - you have an opportunity to object even if you missed the meeting

Michael Cooper - 24 hours after the meeting, you can still raise an objection

Shawn - substantial new information will also allow the decision to be reopened

Michael Cooper - there are escalation paths

Glenda - google docs remain a concern

Michael Cooper - any communication mechanism (he listed several) searchability is always going to be a problem. Google docs isn't any worse than any other async communications mechanism

Rachael - COGA needs google docs because it's the most accessible of the solutions

<Fazio> +1

Glenda - +1 with Rachael

Shawn - need to rephrase "sleeper objections" outside the meeting

Shawn - make it more explicit that discussions can happen anywhere, they need to be linked to email threads or google docs

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest the tracability thing Michael mentioned become more explicit.

<KimD> +1 for Rachael; also agree with MichaelC - there are already lots of places to search; Google docs doesn't make it worse.

michael Cooper - editorial comment adding that will help with new readers

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to suggest 24 hours is too quick

sheri comment - lawyer hat, it should be some number of business hours

<Glenda> +1 to 2 work days

<Lauriat> +1 to business days, definitely.

<KimD> +1 to Janina to working/business days.

sheri comment - more lawyer hat, also need to specify when the clock starts running (is it at the end of the meeting, when the meeting notes are published?)

<Lauriat> We do still have the ongoing ability to reopen "…if substantial new information is presented that could not have been considered in the original discussion."

<Rachael> +1 to 2 working/business days

Michael - 24 hours is to encourage people to attend the meetings and stay on top of things

someone said AGWG is 2 business days

Janina - suggests syncing to main group policy

consensus - increase to two business days

Sheri's plain language suggestion for sleeper - objection that comes from someone who didn't attend the meeting

<Lauriat> +1 to trust + verify

<KimD_> +1 to accepting

<Francis_Storr> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<mikecrabb> +1

<OmarBonilla> +1

<Makoto> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

Jeanne - straw poll to accept decision policy as amended modulo editorial changes for traceability and sleeper objection

<sajkaj> +1 provided tracability is outside Google docs

+1

<Todd> +1

<Glenda> +1 (after minor editorial changes)

<jeanne> +1

<Rachael> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept the Decision Policy with editorial changes from this meeting

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: jeanne sajkaj KimD Rachael Lauriat JakeAbma Francis_Storr sarahhorton joconnor Sheri_B-H CharlesHall Grady_Thompson MichaelC Todd michaelcrabb bruce_bailey Fazio Makoto shari kirkwood Glenda OmarBonilla
Found Scribe: Sheri_B-H
Inferring ScribeNick: Sheri_B-H

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: 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.)