<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-process-03-2021/results
Shadi: This is about the Github settings, can take offline.
... to secure content and access in Github, setting permissions levels for merges
Wilco: seems fair, changes could potentially go directly to the W3C site, so setting only to facilitators is likely best
Kathy: Would this be for all or only editorial changes?
Wilco; only covers the merges
RESOLUTION: Only TF Facilitators should merge pull requests that publish to the WAI website
Shadi: rules still require the same reviews
Wilco: previously, outside contributions are directed to the facilitator
Shadi: suggest responding to the requestor about rule submissions
... about why we are not making the requested change
Wilco: volunteering as a liaison has time commitments
Shadi: annual review sounds like a full review, not the actual check
Wilco: maybe the heading needs to change, to what?
... checkup or check?
Shadi: "check
Kathy: where we don't have a large number of rules, maybe we change it later when it becomes a problem
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/515/files
RESOLUTION: Rename annual review to annual check
Trevor: the check is the liaison responsibility
Shadi: what happens when something needs to change?
Trevor: comment sounds like the confusion between a quick check and a full review
... this should be formally defined somewhere
Kathy: implies task force will review every approved rule
Wilco: the task force only assigns rules to someone
Kathy: sounds like a liaison is only assigned as needed
<Wilco> Since technologies and standards frequently change, rules require regular maintenance. To ensure quality over time, each **approved rule** in the WCAG Ruleset is check at least once a year. If any changes are deemed necessary, a liaison is picked and the change request is handled as survey feedback, starting in the [validation](#4-validation) step.
Shadi: the liaison is chosen first
<scribe> ACTION: Shadi can work on a rewrite after the call
<scribe> ACTION: Wilco to respond to Gundula after the rewrite
Wilco: there is a decision making process document on the wiki
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/blob/master/ACT-Task-Force-Decision-Policy.md
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Task_Force_Decision_Policy
<scribe> ACTION: resolve the duplicate ACT Task Force Decision Policy, likely remote the wiki version.
Wilco: & Shadi proposed a series of workshops on the testing outcomes expected to help the Ag group in requirements, pending response from Ag TF to work on scheduling
Trevor: looking forward to WCAG 3 insights
<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T9nwP8-3yyNEnG6dcfi3vuy22gF5Wb1NHv-6vCA-Kjk/edit
Wilco: can we create another mailing list for this?
... to separate the CG and TF conversations, agendas and meetings
Shadi: could just use the TF list
Wilco to follow up with the CG in next meeting
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_act
Wilco: recommends using a separate IRC channel, but same Zoom
RESOLUTION: Start regular joint CG/TF meetings next week
Wilco: how do we start using the process? existing rules shouldn't just be pushed to the public site
Trevor: do we go through the list to have the TF review existing rules, and new rules would follow the new process
Wilco: better if rules would all be run through the new process
Kathy: could be an extra step that might get skipped
Wilco: some of these rules are 3 years old, so should have been checked in the past, but should happen
Daniel: rules should be checked before publishing to the W3C site
Shadi: recommends pairing reviewers
<Wilco> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Older rules should be checked before they get published as proposed rules. New rules follow the new process
RESOLUTION: Older rules should be checked before they get published as proposed rules. New rules follow the new process