AGWG Teleconference

16 Feb 2021


Rain, alastairc, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Raf, Matt, Orr, Fazio, JF, MelanieP, kirkwood, Nicaise, juliette_mcshane, sarahhorton, MarcJohlic, Caryn, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, Detlev_, JakeAbma, AWK, StefanS, stevelee, JustineP, david-macdonald, GN015_, bruce_bailey, Sukriti, .75, OliverKeim, Matt Orr
Charles Hall, Sukriti Chadha
kirkwood, bruce_bailey


<chuck_> meeting: AGWG-2021-02-16

<Rain> I'm new (my 2nd meeting) but forgot to ask to introduce myself last week

<chuck_> scribe: kirkwood

Chuck: new introductions

<Detlev> have problems connecting to zoom on Mac...

Rain: interaction designer with google on project dedicated to cognitive accessibility, and desing

Captions for meeting available now (automated, or human on request)

CA: other introductions?
... captions of meetings not able to attend, zoom is able to do live captioning, not perfiect but. don’t have formal procedures and plan around it. wnat to get a sense of how to integrtate in our process
... we will always have a human scribe

<JF> s/scrige/scribe

CA: anyone object to live captioning?

JF: one questions there are times want to discuss off the record discussions

AK: not so much about captions be turning off, question is whether it is preserved or not

CA: don’t know if we can turn on or off
... no formal procedures on what we do with these yet

<JF> I'm up for giving it a try, but would like to see a firmer "policy and process" around this

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say we should NOT be turning live captioning on/off

<AWK> So if the captions aren't preserved then it is just as ephemeral as the speech itself.

CA: want to see how it works, then next step about preservation, no plan at moment, but not the minutes

<Ryladog> +1 to Bruce

BB: strongly argue that don’t have expectgation of tunring on and off

CA: let not have expectations

BB: don’t have expectatoin.

<jon_avila> How will those who are deaf or hard of hearing know what is said if we turn it off.

<AWK> +1 to Bruce

<jon_avila> I agree with you Bruce!

BB: stronly not have cationed turning on and off during meeting

JF: leaving captions turn off, we almost need a policy we will not be in transcript
... want open conversation without all bening minuted

GN: remark similar to Bruce. to make meetings more accessible.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that it isn't a replacement for human captioning

AC: this isn’t a replacement for humn captions
... even if no one require captions more question

RM: think there is value, don’t think we should turn off

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention that the slash me

RM: needs to be a thought how to use if choose to save

<Fazio> I don't think saving should be allowed. That's whaat we have minutes for

BB: what type in still in irc log to JF questions of comment

<alastairc> Fazio - that isn't an option with the current feature, it's on or off.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is this related to the code of ethics?

no objections

MG: does ethics of recording guidance to be consider?

<Fazio> +1

<AWK> FYI, the /me comments in IRC re not recorded in the IRC log. I thought that they were...


CA: will be discussing not sure

<alastairc> There is also a bullet that starts "Respect confidentiality and privacy. " which is relevent

<chuck_> kirkwood: Also lots of questions, when would they be deleted? That might be a possibility. We can't hold them over a certain amount of time.

<bruce_bailey> JohnK: places I have worked have policy on deleting as well

<chuck_> kirkwood: That might free some people about talking in session too.

<bruce_bailey> ... that might make some people more comfortable

CA: as far as this call goes, any objections to turning on captions?

<Ryladog> No objections

CA: no objections heard, transcribing turned on

Github branch renaming to 'main'

CA: github branch renaming, Michael?

<alastairc> NB: The captions have 'user-agent' settings, e.g. if you find it distracting you can turn off the pop-over style.

MC: reneme all ‘master’ branches the defaurlt name, beleive ‘main’ is better now
... three line commnd to enter git client to make change in tour github client from master to main
... the question is when is it least dsiruptive for people?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say I don't mind, just need warning

AC: thinking like friday afternoon or something

MC: we did friday afternoon with silver

CA: this friday?

MS: no conserns

Announcement of WCAG2ICT work

=CA: this friday afternoon it is

CA: desire to push but at moment doesn’t have a leader
... i think we need a leader, but happy to be a participant ;)
... if interested let us know
... it seems need a team lead

BB: i volunteer will follow closely

<alastairc> Chairs email if interested: group-ag-chairs@w3.org

BB: vn 302 549 floks should have done, but ship has sailed, should en501 activities?
... have we affirmed this is what WG want to do

AK: en501 is not a prerequeset for this, have intial language for WCAG ICT update but don’t know if done for everything, if yes 2.1 SC and need for 2.2

AC: in turns of status Davicc M took a pass at 2.1. but 2.2 simple version. need to do WCAG ICT group or pub process as well

AK: wether part of ICT or WCAG doesn’t matter so much, when started down path determined not to add to problem of 2.1

CA: is this something we are going to take up per Bruce?
... any further questions, interested in leading, feel free to let chairs know

Please review the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/

<bruce_bailey> i am interesting in participating

<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/

CA: code of ethics an professinal conduct, please review
... govenr behaviors and interactions, this is a new updated version published last year, may be differnent then what you are used to

WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance (enhanced) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/

<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results

Question 1 - Updating Focus Appearance Enhanced to match the min version

CA: thise are surveys

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq1

CA: reading usrvey results 7 agree , 2 want somehting else

<AWK> This isn't AA, is it?

GN: the two requirments are not in sync concwerning wording and order, and in one solid border measured. other solid is not mentioned. adjacent color 3 to 1 which is covfered 4.1.11. only logicla to have 4.5 to one contrast

AC: word solid not mentioned a level up from AA version which has many more caveats to it. slight differnce can take word out
... goes to all points as well, neither require a type of color, did try to match up with AA version
... because minimum requirm3ent has thickness was dropped

GN: mimum contrast focus appearance its either the size or the contrast is that correct?

<alastairc> "The pixels in the minimum focus indicator area achieve at least a 3:1 against adjacent colors in the focused component or the minimum focus indicator area has a thickness of at least 2 CSS pixels."

AC: either 3 to 1 in forcus or focus in pixels

GN: maybe should be clear either or rather than and
... need to understand AA correctly

MG: my comments echo gundula and oliver
... AA agree with them. mimimum version looking at minum error ‘at least as large as one pixel thik” we pbut a lot of time inot it. it was equivlent to it. along lines of second durvey quesiton. greater than or equl to 2 pixel solid border.
... where it makes sense should be changed doesn’t look consistent

CA: conversation about solid

AC: it should look similar to text at top of survey but pull request seemed to be an issue
... i put side by side ikeep AAA simplified, thought was done but confused

CA: perhaps we could go past this one figure out whats going ojn with PR and discuss next week

AC: we have a couple we could take out
... worth checking agians latest version

CA: now?
... like to resolve today

MG: looking at latest published “as large as area” not showing up in language posted in survey

AC: less emphasis on area then outline need to further align not a problem

CA: there are a few changes, hopefully incorporate changes we discussed
... no resolution on this one

Question 2 - Google feedback #1451

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq2

CA: google feedback
... there is issue 1451, 6 agreed one wnated somehting else

MG: think response is through
... wanted to note changes

AC: we have had some reviews, don’t worry about repsone beingout of date will see response soon

CA: do we need to look at 16.24 or

AC: minor edit change, if more will repsond

<Nicaise> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<mbgower> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<Rain> +1

<Detlev_> +1


<laura> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<OliverKeim> +1

<MarcJohlic> +1

<morr4> +1

<jon_avila> -1

<Ryladog> +1

<JF> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that's the AA version

JA: maybe related can be taken separte, since changing definition of mimum area we are allowing a 2 pixe3l wide focus indicator without requirming contrast. before mimum area it would be around the whole thing. Conserned could be used dificult to perceive if just at bottom

AC: think thats AA version

<jon_avila> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended draft response and PR 1624 to address issue 1451.

JA: objection resolved then

Question 3 - Suggest including the first note AAA as well. #1405

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq3

CA: suggest concerning first note. PR 1625 adds suggested note. seems everyone agrees no disagreement

<Nicaise> +1

<laura_> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1


<Rain> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Detlev_> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Raf> +1

<MarcJohlic> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<JF> +1

<morr4> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1625 to address issue 1405

<david-macdonald> +1

Question 4 - C41 does not fulfil SC 2.4.12 #1306

<jon_avila> +1

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq4

CA: Michael Gower wnated somehting else

MG: its ok taking a look now

CA: taking a look

MG: I have confidence in it

<sarahhorton> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<Rain> +1

<mbgower> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1


<laura_> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Detlev_> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Raf> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1626 to address issue 1306

Question 5 - Update G195

<MelanieP> +1

CA: final question

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced/results#xq5

CA: 8 people agreed with change

<Ryladog> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<JustineP> +1

<Rain> +1


<sarahhorton> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Raf> +1

<laura> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<mbgower> +1

BB: does this mean plain language changes and url remains the same?

AC: don’t think it does change

BB: a few keyboard differnces

<Ryladog> yes

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 1627 to update technique G195

CA: any concerns Bruce addressed?

BB: yes

WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance (min), Q1 only: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-updates/

<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-updates/results

Question 1 - The term "minimum focus indicator area" is confusing #1544

CA: the term minimum focus qrea is confusing, david m created it. We have a number of responses all over the board

WF: don’t think its clear minimum area needs contrast. think it flipped around need to start off with 3 to 1 contrast then number of pixels don’t think changes are making it better

AC: still need adjacent contrast, did try changing it around completely but didn’t seem to help
... then wondering about focus area is when put to beginning but didn’t seem to help, this update here may not help either
... if people oon’t hink its an issue that is reasonable as well

CA: other “somehting elses"
... reade says leave out miminum in his comments

SS: exatly what saying in comment

SC: say all pixels not just some

<Ryladog> Adding info about the term in the SCs would be helpful for the translation versions as well

CA: MG prefers current version plus comments

MG: wasn’t sure, focus indicator is defined right now. prefer how it is right now

CA: suggesting we don’t presently have consensus
... proposing this see hwer we are at

SS: we already have a definition

AC: problem David is having…

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

AC: problem David is describing is where focus indicator goes beyond minimum
... so has good change of contrast, but has shadow or yellow highlight
... that extra can interfere with our definition, maybe not ALL of focus indictor meets our requirement
... we don't want people to fail because they are going beyond minimum
... so how can we say that better?
... Davids idea was to add note, but I added some prosed

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say figure 7 and figure 8 address. Perhaps add a subheading?

AC: with having focus indicator a defined term

Mike Gower: We do have illustrations in Understading for this case which Alastair describes

scribe: but I remain concerned with having these details in the SC text
... MG but maybe I take that back?

Chuck: lets have a straw poll
... answer as-is or change

<david-macdonald> change

<mbgower> As is SC (but consider changes to Understanding)

<JF> some version of change

AC: could be some version of change

DavidM: I would say this SC is up there with most complicated and referenced SC

<chuck_> POLL: Keep SC as is in it's current state by responding "as-is", or modify the SC with "change"

DavidM: if it is clean and make it quick, i am all for edits

<Rain> change

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think the Understanding doc could match the bullets in its headings

MikeG: this could potentially be clarified by having Understanding document match bullets

<jon_avila> change or change with amendments

<Wilco> change

Chuck: some edits being proposed

<chuck_> +1 to matchings bullets

<Ryladog> +1 to matching bullets

Chuck: i like the the matching bullets

<mbgower> Matching headings to bullets

Chuck: this is not a quick edit though

Alastair: Heading mostly match AFTER first heading

Chuck: so can this be a quick edit?

<mbgower> Alastair is correct; the rest of the H2s match

Alastair to Stefen, do these admendment make you more comfortable?

Stefan Schnabel: Yes, but we have discussed several things here.

Alastair: would not characterize these edits as dramatic

<Ryladog> +1

Chuck straw polls the PR

<StefanS> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<Rain> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<laura> +1

<alastairc> Old: "The pixels making up the minimum focus indicator area achieve..." vs New: "The pixels in the minimum area of the focus indicator achieve..."

<JakeAbma> +1

<Detlev_> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<Sukriti> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<MarcJohlic> +1

<morr4> +1

<mbgower> -1

Wilco Fiers: I am not sure this addresses concerns raised in survey

scribe: yeah, i do not like it

Mike Gower: PR remove focus indicator as a defined term, so it ends up harder to tell what is being talked about

scribe: it does not match the literal SC text

David M: What is the general opinon of first proposal?

<GN015_> 'the minimum area of the focus indicator' is more easily mistaken as the area enclosed by the focus indicator that the old wording.

MG: First bullet is about hte minimum focus area
... i don't feel like we need to define term when whole paragrah is about that

<Ryladog> better to not have definition elsewhere if the meaning is unclear in context

Chuck: To clarify, if we don't have concensus, we just leave things as is

<AWK> David, I don't like putting things that need to be evaluated into the definition

Chuck: from all this discussion, there clearly are concerns

<Detlev_> Mike has a point!

<JF> /me I'm with MG

Andrew Kirkpatrick: One thing I was concerned with is use of "minimum" which feels like something that belongs in SC rather than Understanding

scribe: just seems hard to parse

Chuck: We have a number of concerns, so no concensus, so leave open

<Ryladog> +1

<mbgower> 0 can't we alter the Understanding doc?

<chuck_> Bruce: What about changing the first heading?

Alastair: changing first heading has some complexity for chaning first heading to bullets

Wilco: should we not keep pull request open

Chuck: strong support for doing something
... but default position is to do something

<chuck_> bruce: There does seem to be group consensus to keep working on it.

Mike G: these are largish documents, when they were not so big, it was easier to not to touch SC text. Maybe a table of contents

Alastair: Might want to take this up with Michael Cooper because there is some interest with updating templates
... so sub headings might want to pulled into TOC

Chuck: This is complicated, so we table the larger issues for now.
... Need volunteer for next pass if that is what the group wants

Rain askes about deadline.

Alastair: Deadline is soon, but maybe not for 2.2 publishing since Understanding can be updated as we go along
... but that is only true if SC text is stable

<Rain> I will volunteer to work on the understanding document

<sarahhorton> +1

<Detlev_> +1

Chuck: No consensus for updating SC text, but we could work on Understanding more

MikeG: survey is about adopting PR or not

Chuck, straw poll to clean up PR

<Wilco> +1, assuming the SC will still be updated

<mbgower> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<Rain> +1

<Detlev_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<david-macdonald> +

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<JustineP> +1

<GN015_> +1

<AWK> +1

<morr4> +1

<OliverKeim> +1

RESOLUTION: Reject PR 1628, leave SC and modify the understanding document, to be reviewed in call later.

WCAG 2.2 Dragging (Q1-2 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/

<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging-issues/results

Question 1 - Updated SC text for closing issues


Question 1 - Change "Operated" to "Achieved"


Chuck: single word alteration can cause confusion
... mixing swipe left from swipe right has tap alternative, not really dragging

Oliver Keim: achived as a replacement for operated seems like a simplification,

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to Oliver's comment

scribe: but even simplier would be to take the word out

Alastair: Agree that there would not be a drag movement that is not for operation, but don't think this changes the phrasing

<david-macdonald> comes from pointer operation langugae

<david-macdonald> "...path-based gestures for operation can be operated with a single pointer..."

Wilco: Is there a difference between use of Operates here and with 2.5.1 pointer gestures?
... if we do mean the same thing, we should not make a change

DavidM: We might not have gotten it exactly right the first time.

Wilco: Then that implies an errata might be needed.
... If there is a difference between this and use in 2.5.1, then we need errata or a new word.

MikeG: 2.5.1 can be read as if you need to provide for a single pointer.

MG: but i like most recent wording

MikeG: This SC started with language from 2.5.1

<Wilco> +1

MikeG: as part of that I realized that new SC using onld phrasing implied using single pointer operation was a requirement

<david-macdonald> Operation = a method or manner of functioning https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operation

MikeG: so I would propose we get it right for this new SC, but we probably need to discusss errata for 2.5.1

<Wilco> +1

Alastair: Agree with both of MikeG points.

<mbgower> erratum? :)

Chuck gives straw poll for Operated versus Achieved

<JF> +1 to David (& Mike) - consistency is important

DavidM: People who have made effort to understand 2.5.1 will have no trouble with this new SC

Chuck asks David to clarify

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we haven't answered Oliver's question

DavidM: Reminds that 2.0 took ten years and still there is a lot of iteration, so need for errata on 2.1 is not as urgent

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say make that a different issue

<alastairc> agree 3 different issues

Alastair: We have not answered all of the commenter questions. Is there a difference between pointer operation and pointer operation for functionality

MikeG: We can quite easily answer the two word edit.
... the thinking cap question we can come back to later.

DavidM: Please see link from Merriam Webster
... changing pharasing of SC is likely to cause some consternation

<david-macdonald> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operation

Chuck: I am seeing two clear choices here

MikeG: Survey question is for word change on new SC, but I disagree this boxes us into doing an erratta

Chuck: Okay, focus on survey question, and no commitment for errata

<mbgower> +1

Chuck gives straw poll

<Wilco> +1

<OliverKeim> +1

<Raf> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Rain> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<JF> +.75

<david-macdonald> 0

<Sukriti> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<laura__> +1

<MelanieP> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept Michael Gower's recommended change of "Operated" to "Achieved", and create issue that requests erratum for 2.5.1.

Question 2 - Dragging and its reference to single pointer #1225 (take 2)

<alastairc> ok, we'll come back to that if Oliver wants to create an issue...

DavidM: likes the "for operation" focus

<Wilco> +1, taking it out sounds odd

DavidM: makes it clear that it is not REQUIREd

<JF> +1 to Wilco

MikeG: There is not an issue open for removing "for operation"
... not part of this survey question

Chuck: on to next survey question


Sarah Horton: concepts are good, but needs editorial work

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to point to Detlev's update

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1638/files

scribe: so in current state would cause more confusion than help

Alastair: Detlev also had editorial concerns
... there is an update to David's update

<mbgower> This is in the Understanding document.

Sarah: Agree that most recent edit is an improvement, but it still needs more work

Chuck asks Sarah to help edit

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say it can get refined more later

MikeG: This is an Understanding doc, so we can keep working on it
... suggest keeping this edit and ask for another issue and PR as people like

Sarah: Reluctant to add something new, and this seems pretty substantive and new, so we should work on it more before its first publication

DavidM: Outlines history, would not characterize as "new"

Alastair clarifies that all changes in PR 1636

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1636/files

<mbgower> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1636/files

<david-macdonald> +1

<mbgower> +1

<OliverKeim> +1

<juliette_mcshane> +1

<Rain> +1

<laura> +1

<JF> +1

<alastairc> +1 (and Sarah can ask for help!)

<Sukriti> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

Chuck asks for straw poll on ammened resolution

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Detlev_> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept draft response and PR 1636 to address issue 1225, and Sarah Horton will provide new PR with additional improvements.

Chuck: clarifies that Detlevs edit has been incorporated

WCAG 2.2 Target spacing (Q1 only) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/

<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results


Question 1 - Updated SC text for closing issues

Chuck: This would address five issues, 5 agrees and 3 "something else", calls on Wilco

<Wilco> https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/pen/abZxPow

Wilco: have example of nested issue, G2 and G3 and M3
... i think there is straightforward fix, in the offset bit

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1645/files

Alastair: agreed with Wilco and pulled in Wilco edits with new PR
... asking if everyone agrees with new edits, but wants to hear MikeG's comments

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#pointer-target-spacing

<alastairc> sorry, that was the old one

MikeG: Writing has has preamble and then bullets, just does not read quite cleanly

<alastairc> Latest: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/scha14-pointer-target-spacing/understanding/22/pointer-target-spacing.html

Chuck: So are you asking for additional edits to 1645?

Mike reads was he has as existing text.

Chuck: This might be a quick win.
... okay leave open

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept amended draft response and PR 1624 to address issue 1451.
  2. Accept PR 1625 to address issue 1405
  3. Accept PR 1626 to address issue 1306
  4. Accept PR 1627 to update technique G195
  5. Reject PR 1628, leave SC and modify the understanding document, to be reviewed in call later.
  6. Accept Michael Gower's recommended change of "Operated" to "Achieved", and create issue that requests erratum for 2.5.1.
  7. Accept draft response and PR 1636 to address issue 1225, and Sarah Horton will provide new PR with additional improvements.
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/02/16 18:00:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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/googld/google/
Succeeded: s/scrige/scribe/
FAILED: s/scrige/scribe/
Succeeded: s/disruptive3/dsiruptive/
Succeeded: s/somehting/something/
Succeeded: s/use3d/used/
Succeeded: s/vershion/version/
Succeeded: s/confersation/conversation/
Succeeded: s/todqya/today/
Succeeded: s/incoproate/incorporate/
Succeeded: s/coudl/could/
Succeeded: s/reolved/resolved/
Succeeded: s/first not./first note./
Succeeded: s/contract/contrast/
Succeeded: s/pople/people/
Succeeded: s/contrase/contrast/
Succeeded: s/chagne/change/
Succeeded: s/?me I'm with MG/ /me I'm with MG/
Succeeded: s/rainbreaw//
Default Present: Rain, alastairc, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Raf, Matt, Orr, Fazio, JF, MelanieP, kirkwood, Nicaise, juliette_mcshane, sarahhorton, MarcJohlic, Caryn, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, Detlev_, JakeAbma, AWK, StefanS, stevelee, JustineP, david-macdonald, GN015_, bruce_bailey, Sukriti, .75, OliverKeim
Present: Rain, alastairc, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Raf, Matt, Orr, Fazio, JF, MelanieP, kirkwood, Nicaise, juliette_mcshane, sarahhorton, MarcJohlic, Caryn, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, Detlev_, JakeAbma, AWK, StefanS, stevelee, JustineP, david-macdonald, GN015_, bruce_bailey, Sukriti, .75, OliverKeim, Matt Orr
Regrets: Charles Hall, Sukriti Chadha
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Scribes: kirkwood, bruce_bailey
ScribeNicks: kirkwood, bruce_bailey

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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]