<scribe> scribe: shadi

AG Status Update

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

RM: couple of things going on in the AGWG
... not approved yet

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

RM: survey coming
... Content Usabe comments closes tomorrow
... so that process will come back to AGWG

SAZ: WG reviewing Content Usable?
... COGA doing the review
... then go to AGWG and APA
... need to add ACT Rules

MC: should also track the Conformance Challenges doc

SAZ: recall some issues last time with COGA publications
... more interaction planned this time

<Rachael> SAZ: Is there a way to get more involvement from the working group earlier?

MC: used to have comments marked pleminary then review by WG
... might be burdensome
... with Rachael and Steve involved, hope it goes more smoothly

SAZ: maybe balance between, like controversial comments

RM: like that idea, to help filter comments

SL: wonder about the mechanics
... does the TF raise the issue?

MC: would be primarily leadership based on discussion

SAZ: in ACT, we use CFCs
... could indicate discrepancy

MC: most TFs perceive CFCs as too cumbersome
... other than for major decisions
... may be other ways to determine lack of consensus

RM: we usually reach agreement in COGA
... so not sure that CFC is as helpful

Task force update

[UPDATE ON SILVER]

JS: trying to get FPWD our before TPAC
... first draft for AGWG to look at since February
... good responses so far, no large objections
... formed groups to look at objections we did get
... unfortunately objecter did not show up for the meeting
... looking at evaluation and conformance section
... shaping up and looking pretty good
... but changed quite a bit since meetings in August
... trying to smooth it all out and make more progress

RM: anything AGWG leadership can help you at this stage?

JS: look at the current draft closely, because want to start adding content

RM: would it be helpful for everyone if Jeanne would present the template for the techniques?

JS: think it is an excellent idea

KW: yes, that would be great

[UPDATE ON MOBILE]

KW: had been on a break the past few weeks
... looking at guidance for mobile apps
... especially in relation to WCAG2ICT

RM: anything you need from the AGWG leadership?

KW: not at this stage, still at discovery stage

MJM: would that entail updating the WCAG2ICT document?

KW: not sure yet, still looking

MJM: put a lot of effort in a previous attempt to update WCAG2ICT
... may be good to start from that to avoid recreating

MC: could ask David directly

MJM: happy to help with that document
... could ping David

MC: may be good to involve Chuck too

JS: instead, maybe start working on mobile part of Silver?

KW: maybe join that meeting to see the direction it is taking

MC: may also need more guidance on how to evolve these parts

RM: met about it this morning

KW: maybe can write things in a way that they can be reused

<Rachael> shadi: I agree that we should try to get as many hands on deck on Silver as possible but I think there are two immediate benefits to WCAG to ICT. It may help us to find wording that is reusable for Silver but also find gaps that we could do differently in Silver. Also WCAG 2 is going to be around for a long time. An update of WCAG to ICT would be useful. Combining the efforts woudl be good.

[UPDATE ON ACT]

MJM: working on pre-approving rules to queue for AGWG
... going a little slower during vacations period
... have 7 rules in queue meanwhile
... so may be good to get on your agenda soonish
... Wilco putting together a Pull Request

RM: probably heads-down on Silver for 15 and 22nd

MJM: can't commit to 8th, so maybe better aim for 6th October

[UPDATE ON COGA]

SL: lots of feedback coming in, which is good

RM: Content Usable moving along, especially the Glossary

Reminder: Task force decision making policy

RM: we were working on that previously

<Rachael> COGA's https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f4NhQMtQthDbShVje3evTqELBa9eR6eSyoA31Jjlgm4/edit#heading=h.38pppwromd4r

RM: two models, COGA and Silver
... both not approved

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

MC: COGA version worded quite differently
... will need to read it in detail
... policy needs to consider WG reviews
... minimize overhead
... and avoid unresponded issues

SAZ: missed the latest on this topic

<Rachael> shadi: Last time I attended, we were looking into a decision policy. Are task forces are expected to have decision policies?

RM: if WG decision-policy works then fine
... otherwise needs a written policy approved by AGWG

MJM: essentially using WG process
... and specific rule-review process

MC: if there are any ways to minimize the overhead

SAZ: concerned that cutting corners could create more cycles

Action Items

RM: MC to setup Google Doc to help facilitate this meeting
... temporary document

MC: dropped that, will take it up again

RM: RM to setup virtual chats to get together informally

<Rachael> Chairs: Set up a day for Topic Centered Discussions in November

RM: looking at October when people are back

<Rachael> All facilitators: Continue working on and sharing decision making policies

RM: everyone has action to work on decision-making policy

<Rachael> Rachael & Lisa: Meet next week to draft decision policy for COGA and share with others

<Rachael> Chairs: Discuss and communicate possible dates for bringing ACT rules forward, add to schedule

RM: COGA policy closed

<Rachael> Rachael: Set up standing call for outstanding issues on Content Usable document

RM: RM to setup standing calls
... that was setup for Thursdays
... any other actions?

MJM: will contact David on WCAG2ICT

KW: will then setup a meeting

AOB

RM: what can we do to improve this meeting?

KW: need help with the decision-policy work

RM: need a decision-policy for your Task Force
... can be light, to show how decisions are made and who is involved

MC: codifies how you are making decisions
... separating discussion from decision
... traceability of discussions leading to decisions
... also considerations for minority review

RM: next month's topic will be on Silver templates
... and how to work with these

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)

Default Present: Chuck, Wilco, Rachael, stevelee, MichaelC, jeanne, Kathy, maryjom, shadi
Present: Chuck Wilco Rachael stevelee MichaelC jeanne Kathy maryjom shadi
Found Scribe: shadi
Inferring ScribeNick: shadi

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.)