13:25:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver
13:25:16 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/27-silver-irc
13:25:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:25:19 <Zakim> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
13:25:22 <jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
13:25:22 <jeanne> present:
13:25:22 <jeanne> chair: Shawn, jeanne
13:25:22 <jeanne> present+
13:25:22 <jeanne> zakim, clear agenda
13:25:22 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
13:25:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/27-silver-minutes.html jeanne
13:25:22 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:25:22 <jeanne> q?
13:28:00 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver
13:28:05 <jeanne> agenda+ Reminder of Virtual Face to Face Thursday
13:28:06 <jeanne> agenda+ Friday? Thinking no.
13:28:06 <jeanne> agenda+ AG WG Call reviewing survey of draft responses
13:28:06 <jeanne> agenda+ Reminder of now-forming joint working sessions with ACT May 14 & 21
13:28:06 <jeanne> agenda+ Review Bronze, Silver, Gold Options 2, 3, & 5
13:28:06 <jeanne> agenda+ Review Bronze, Silver, Gold Questions to ensure coverage
13:28:16 <sajkaj> present+
13:28:21 <Lauriat> Present+
13:28:23 <Azlan> present+
13:28:30 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
13:28:48 <jeanne> present+
13:29:20 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #silver
13:29:25 <Francis_Storr> present+
13:29:34 <JF> JF has joined #silver
13:29:41 <JF> Present+
13:29:58 <JF> agenda?
13:30:48 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #silver
13:30:53 <bruce_bailey> present+
13:31:07 <Lauriat> Zakim, take up item 1
13:31:07 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Reminder of Virtual Face to Face Thursday -- taken up [from jeanne]
13:31:15 <ChrisLoiselle> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
13:31:28 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #silver
13:31:32 <Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021
13:31:35 <sarahhorton> present+
13:31:35 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Face to Face reminder
13:31:36 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #silver
13:31:39 <laura> laura has joined #silver
13:31:42 <Azlan> Is it just me that sees a message in Zoom saying the host has another meeting in progress?
13:31:44 <johnkirkwood> johnkirkwood has joined #silver
13:31:50 <Makoto> present+
13:31:54 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
13:31:59 <Rachael> present+
13:32:01 <MichaelC> present+
13:32:11 <ChrisLoiselle> ET time presented on link for meeting times.
13:32:13 <Lauriat> Zakim, take up next item
13:32:14 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Friday? Thinking no. -- taken up [from jeanne]
13:32:26 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #silver
13:32:55 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #silver
13:32:56 <JF> +1 Shawn
13:33:01 <Francis_Storr> +1
13:33:04 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL:  For scheduling, we may not do our Friday meeting due to Thursday. Opens to anyone for comments.
13:33:05 <JustineP> present+
13:33:10 <Rachael> +1
13:33:17 <Wilco> present+
13:33:24 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Will send out email to group informing no Friday meeting this week.
13:33:34 <Lauriat> Zakim, take up next item
13:33:34 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- AG WG Call reviewing survey of draft responses -- taken up [from jeanne]
13:34:26 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: At 11:15 , we will be reviewing survey of draft responses, please join at that time if you are interested on the AGWG call.
13:34:31 <Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/30_weekly_21_April_21/
13:34:53 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Link to draft responses is in the survey link
13:34:58 <Lauriat> Zakim, take up next item
13:34:58 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Reminder of now-forming joint working sessions with ACT May 14 & 21 -- taken up [from jeanne]
13:35:20 <Azlan> I am now in. Thanks. Not sure why I had issues. Restarted Zoom.
13:35:23 <Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/ACT_-_Silver_Joint_Meeting_May_2021
13:35:34 <mikecrabb> mikecrabb has joined #silver
13:35:55 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
13:36:14 <ChrisLoiselle> TOPIC: Errors methods discussion
13:36:18 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
13:36:50 <sarahhorton> Errors method draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZsIC7pXqQS8L15GQnkXnV5RHHqpUmnAYaPiEGU2kQ9g/edit#
13:36:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Sarah: We were looking to get content in for deadline of heartbeat publication. We wanted to share what we were working on.
13:37:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Error Prevention - Guideline: Provide features that help users avoid errors. “Error prevention” how-to (link).
13:37:54 <ChrisLoiselle> ... We are looking at one method, on error prevention guideline and input instructions outcome.
13:38:19 <ChrisLoiselle> ... We are for instructions display on source of input and think we can write that up rather soon.
13:38:43 <jeanne> q+ to say that I think we could put it in TBD
13:38:52 <ChrisLoiselle> ... We are eager for feedback. The How to Content will not be fully developed but were wondering whether that has to be part of release for this publication.
13:39:25 <ChrisLoiselle> ... Question to group is whether we publish or hold back to August. Other request is for feedback to us on substance and edits in document.
13:39:28 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
13:39:31 <jeanne> ack je
13:39:31 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I think we could put it in TBD
13:39:31 <joconnor> present+
13:40:00 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: I think we could put that in, and mark it "To be Developed" . Michael Cooper, do you agree?
13:40:43 <ChrisLoiselle> MichaelC: On placeholder to the how to, I think a placeholder at the URI level , but wouldn't require that content is all worked out.
13:40:52 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: I can help you with that placeholder page.
13:41:12 <ChrisLoiselle> Sarah: It is in a Google doc, should it be ready for the GitHub template instead?
13:41:56 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: Yes. I can help you with that. There are also templates available for you within the GitHub structure. I.e. folders and sub folders.
13:42:38 <ChrisLoiselle> Sarah: Stacy and I can speak to the procedure and templates.
13:43:03 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: It does need to get into HTML . If you have an expert that can do that, then please do go ahead and do that.
13:43:31 <Jemma> Jemma has joined #silver
13:43:43 <Jemma> present+
13:43:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Sarah: Action item for me is to follow up with Stacy on formatting and get as much as possible in GitHub and templates, etc. I am open to feedback on Google doc from this group, thank you.
13:44:02 <Lauriat> Zakim, take up next item
13:44:02 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Review Bronze, Silver, Gold Options 2, 3, & 5 -- taken up [from jeanne]
13:44:06 <Jemma> Thanks for all your work, Sarah
13:44:36 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: Can we start with option 5?
13:44:40 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Sure.
13:44:48 <Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.sfhpix2nobjs
13:45:07 <ChrisLoiselle> Option 5 - Point based system
13:45:39 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael : Instead of a rating scale, would use a point based system.
13:45:43 <johnkirkwood> present+
13:45:55 <Lauriat> Assign points each outcome using variety of approaches to testing: If points are used, consider assigning up to 2 points for A and AA like SC (2 for 100% correct within stated scope and 1 for partial). Allow an additional point for AAA-like SC
13:46:01 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Would assign up to two points for A and AA.
13:46:32 <Lauriat> Points consistent across outcomes
13:46:40 <Lauriat> Bronze, silver and gold is assigned based on the number of points accumulated
13:46:42 <ChrisLoiselle> ... If outcome was above and beyond, potential for more points, up to 3 points.
13:46:56 <Lauriat> Points evaluated across disability categories
13:47:29 <ChrisLoiselle> ... Point based could push you to silver and gold and encourage a company to move forward.
13:47:36 <JF> Q+ to ask why points are so "small"
13:47:50 <ChrisLoiselle> ... Point cap on category and maturity model would be looked at.
13:47:51 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
13:47:59 <Lauriat> ack JF
13:47:59 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask why points are so "small"
13:48:39 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Why are small point numbers the reference point? Granularity , i.e. 62 points vs. 70 points and gradual increase / decrease ?
13:49:21 <jeanne> q+ to discuss sensistivity metric
13:49:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Based on outcome, for Blind users, 30 or 40 outcomes , three points possible, you are potentially around 90 points for this outcome. Simplicity is where we want to head.
13:49:38 <ChrisLoiselle> ... just a different way to look at it .
13:50:09 <sajkaj> q+
13:50:23 <Lauriat> ack jeanne
13:50:23 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss sensistivity metric
13:50:23 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Percentages were looked at , at some point , and rolling that up to bronze, silver, gold would be a good reference point. Seems like apples to oranges.
13:50:41 <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dingDd116FVx0QuxCemgHbReJfNxMZRSF1q3dJ9Uj5U/edit#h.f6vq4weghcel
13:50:46 <JustineP> Is it possible for a website to meet bronze-level conformance yet still have one or more major gaps in usability/meeting one or more critical SCs?
13:50:55 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: JF makes a good point, on Accessibility Metrics.  On adequacy metric.
13:51:24 <ChrisLoiselle> Small change have small change on score. Large changes have large change on score.
13:51:31 <JF> small positive changes are still positive changes...
13:52:09 <ChrisLoiselle> q? What qualifies as a small change vs. a large change?
13:52:14 <Rachael> q+
13:52:24 <ChrisLoiselle> q+  What qualifies as a small change vs. a large change?
13:52:46 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: The thing I like is that it would be simpler to understand and remember.
13:53:01 <Lauriat> ack sajkaj
13:53:07 <Lauriat> q+ ChrisLoiselle
13:53:45 <ChrisLoiselle> Janina: I believe if we took outcome by outcome , i.e. to 50 or 99, I'm not sure how you define the difference, seems arbitrary.
13:54:20 <ChrisLoiselle> ... I think this is an outcome by outcome basis, but you are meeting at a category level. I.e. Blind people who use screen readers.
13:54:49 <ChrisLoiselle> ... The category by category parity to not favor one group of users over another.
13:55:06 <johnkirkwood> present+
13:55:46 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Right now it states 2 points for 100 percent and 1 for partial. Feels to me that everybody would get 1 point. Binary almost.
13:56:19 <ChrisLoiselle> Janina : I understand the point. How would you quantify 1 - 5 or a 6?
13:56:30 <Lauriat> ack Rachael
13:57:35 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: The requirements around simplicity was the goal. The simpler the rating scale is , the better.  Set of small points , we set requirements in the categories. Simply across outcomes.
13:57:57 <JF> @Rachael I understand your response
13:58:06 <Lauriat> ack ChrisLoiselle
13:58:07 <jeanne> qq+
13:58:35 <Lauriat> ack jeanne
13:58:35 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to react to ChrisLoiselle
13:58:37 <Jemma> +1 for simplicity
13:58:51 <Rachael> q+
13:59:00 <Rachael> q-
13:59:29 <JF> small to whom? For loow-viz users it may be "huge"
13:59:33 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: If someone improved the visual contrast , and they now had a 2 , and that  brought them to a higher level, that would be an issue.
14:00:50 <Francis_Storr> Q=
14:00:52 <Francis_Storr> q+
14:01:01 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:01:04 <Lauriat> ack Francis_Storr
14:01:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Francis: JF's done some great work on conformance evaluation , great feedback to work through. Thank to JF>
14:01:49 <jeanne> +1 JF
14:02:05 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
14:02:19 <Francis_Storr> Also: Todd has sent over some really helpful content.
14:02:28 <Lauriat> Option 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.hcbzmqyaxwcq
14:03:08 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: Option 2 - AAA to Silver
14:03:14 <Lauriat> Bronze - A/AA, some AAA, and expand to contextual testing
14:03:20 <Lauriat> Silver - AAA and other outcomes that build on bronze
14:03:23 <ChrisLoiselle> ... WCAG 2.x and contextual items
14:04:15 <Lauriat> Gold - AT and User/Usability testing
14:04:22 <Lauriat> Maturity Model as a 2nd Document
14:04:33 <JF> NOtes that a 3:1 also exists for 14 pt Bold or 18pt or >
14:04:35 <ChrisLoiselle> ... better in Silver , for example ratios for visual contrast and migrating to silver and gold
14:04:55 <Lauriat> Option 3: One testing type for silver, both for gold
14:05:05 <ChrisLoiselle> ... Also talks to maturity model , AT and User / Usability Testing.
14:05:09 <Lauriat> Bronze - A/AA (with AAA integrated in) Silver - AT testing or User/Usability Testing Gold - AT testing and User/Usability Testing Maturity Model as a 2nd Document
14:05:39 <Lauriat> Option 4 - AT testing options in Silver & Gold
14:05:40 <ChrisLoiselle> ... Small orgs may not be able to do assistive technology testing or user testing.
14:05:46 <Lauriat> Bronze - A/AA  Silver - AAA and (AT testing or User/Usability Testing) Gold - AAA, AT testing and User/Usability Testing Maturity Model as a 2nd Document
14:06:19 <jeanne> q+ to say that keeping all the guidelines at bronze solves disability parity and also gives incentive to improve
14:06:21 <ChrisLoiselle> ...difference is where you draw the lines
14:06:29 <Lauriat> ack jeanne
14:06:29 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that keeping all the guidelines at bronze solves disability parity and also gives incentive to improve
14:07:20 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: I like the options that keep all the guidelines at bronze level . It solves disparity between disabilities. All guidance at bronze level. Gets away from a and aa and aaa for particular disability groups.
14:08:25 <Wilco> q+
14:08:30 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: the second part is that keeping guidelines at bronze, provides companies that want to be recognized for doing more, there are two more levels.
14:09:42 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: JF talks to snapshot in time and incentive to include positive movement .
14:10:10 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: WCAG EM was a great reference, but wasn't a part of WCAG 2
14:10:13 <Lauriat> ack Wilco
14:10:47 <JF> +1 to Wilco. There is building safe cars, and learning safe driving. Related but alswo vastly different
14:10:48 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: It is a vastly different thing in that maturity model doesn't belong in same document as silver.
14:10:57 <Lauriat> q+ to expand on Wilco's point from my perspective
14:11:37 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: There is a base level to maturity to progress to .  Squeezing into same conformance model, and flattening it is not recommended.
14:11:44 <JF> ack L
14:11:44 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to expand on Wilco's point from my perspective
14:12:47 <JF> +1 to Shawn
14:12:51 <sarahhorton> q+
14:12:52 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Some orgs have lack of maturity. The development of maturity may be great, but product compliance may not be where they need to be. Each is important in context.
14:12:53 <Jemma> +1 to shawn
14:13:03 <Lauriat> ack sarahhorton
14:13:33 <jeanne> Q+ to ask Shawn if he thinks that maturity model "dimensions" should be individual guidelines?
14:13:38 <Jemma> Q+ not specific to this option - ex: vendor requirement case
14:13:44 <ChrisLoiselle> Sarah: Has there been talk to process requirements in to all levels? I.e. process and procedure weaved into different levels along with technical standards?
14:14:22 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: I think there are infinite types of orgs , it can get prescriptive in activity and 100 different right outcomes.
14:14:25 <Lauriat> ack Jemma
14:14:37 <JF> Q+ to speak to a built-in barrier based on entity size
14:15:28 <ChrisLoiselle> Jemma: We can ask vendors to comply to WCAG 2. If we go to this , how do we tell vendors that we need to meet a majority model level and silver vs. bronze? Vendor may not work to our requirements as an University.
14:15:41 <jeanne> +1 to Jemma's point that keeps maturity model at a higher level
14:15:42 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:15:53 <Lauriat> ack jeanne
14:15:53 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask Shawn if he thinks that maturity model "dimensions" should be individual guidelines?
14:16:16 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: dimensions could be individual guidelines scored within a larger score?
14:16:31 <Jemma> s/majority/maturity
14:16:37 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Potentially, but defer to maturity model group members.
14:17:02 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: How do we say  you don't have to do this, if we mix it in with bronze level and guidelines?
14:17:04 <JF> If you say "You don't have to do this" they won't
14:17:33 <Jemma> yes. John is correct
14:17:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne:  I agree , the people who don't want to do it and are forced by legal to do, won't.
14:17:53 <Wilco> q+
14:17:54 <sajkaj> I find myself thinking of maturity model more as a best practices
14:18:01 <Rachael> q+
14:18:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: I do believe people who are trying to do this will do the extra .
14:18:14 <Lauriat> ack JF
14:18:14 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to speak to a built-in barrier based on entity size
14:18:25 <JF> Over 99 percent of America's 28.7 million firms are small businesses. The vast majority (88 percent) of employer firms have fewer than 20 employees, and nearly 40 percent of all enterprises have under $100k in revenue.  (source: https://www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/research/small-business/small-business-dashboard/economic-activity#:~:text=Over%2099%20percent%20of%20America's,under%20$100k%20in%20revenue.)
14:18:32 <ChrisLoiselle> JF:  On multiple currency topic and BruceB's reference point.
14:18:33 <Jemma> and also the "point" should be consistent through organization like universities
14:18:35 <bruce_bailey> +1 for the multiple currencies !
14:18:51 <laura_> laura_ has joined #silver
14:18:56 <Jemma> s/"point"/"pointer"
14:19:01 <Rachael> q-
14:19:32 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: Talks to small business and number of employees. Scaling of maturity model and having a gold standing for small business would be harder for smaller orgs.
14:19:34 <Lauriat> qq+
14:19:40 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:20:14 <Lauriat> ack me
14:20:14 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to react to JF
14:20:21 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Maturity model and wrapping into WCAG 3 would probably be best served for after we review maturity model.
14:20:21 <Jemma> s/organization like universities/organizations like the use case of university's VPAT review
14:20:22 <Lauriat> ack Wilco
14:20:23 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:21:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Wilco: I'm not sure if having a maturity model into wcag 3 is beneficial unless it is required by law and enforceable.
14:21:43 <JF> +1 to Wilco.
14:21:46 <johnkirkwood> +1 to Wilco
14:21:47 <jeanne> q+ to disagree with Wilco that it has to be used in law.  Most standaards are not used in law.  It is rare to have a standard that is used in law.
14:21:47 <Jemma> +1 to Wilco - "enforceable"
14:21:59 <JustineP> +1 to Wilco
14:22:01 <Lauriat> ack jeanne
14:22:01 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to disagree with Wilco that it has to be used in law.  Most standaards are not used in law.  It is rare to have a standard that is used in law.
14:22:14 <ChrisLoiselle> ShawnL: Helpful to have guidance out there for maturity model, wherever it may live.
14:22:18 <Rachael> q+ to discuss possibility of multiple complimentary documents
14:22:26 <JF> Q+ to note that if we don't make our new standard applicable in law,it won't be taken up that way
14:22:35 <ChrisLoiselle> Jeanne: Most standards aren't used in law but allow people to work in common ways in addition to just legal interpretation.
14:22:46 <sajkaj> q+ on standards and law
14:22:57 <bruce_bailey> q+ to compare to IBC
14:23:06 <ChrisLoiselle> ... I think information in WCAG 3 , i.e. maturity model, would be beneficial to place in WCAG 3.
14:23:11 <Lauriat> ack Rachael
14:23:11 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss possibility of multiple complimentary documents
14:23:13 <Jemma> Illinois state IT accessibility Act use WCAG 2 as enforcement tool for the vendors.
14:23:54 <ChrisLoiselle> Rachael: WCAG 3 as multiple complementary documents is a possibility. I.e. web, client apps, orgs. Thinking as WCAG 3 as a single document may not be the only way to look at this.
14:23:56 <Lauriat> ack JF
14:23:56 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that if we don't make our new standard applicable in law,it won't be taken up that way
14:24:46 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: I think Rachael sums this up the correct way.  For an analogy , we need safe cars but we also need safe drivers who drive the safe cars.
14:25:21 <ChrisLoiselle> JF: I think the need for unambiguous measurement will be present.
14:25:21 <Lauriat> ack sajkaj
14:25:21 <Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to comment on standards and law
14:25:25 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:26:44 <Lauriat> Collectively referred to as "Regulatory Environment" in our Requirements, for reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#regulatory-environment
14:27:16 <Wilco> +1
14:27:25 <JF> +1 to Janina
14:27:39 <ChrisLoiselle> Janina: In W3C, WCAG basis on law is included in legal.  A lot of regulatory reliance on specifications is key and finding a way of being quantifiable is important. Maturity model just for gold is a problem. The effectiveness of document is important to look at.
14:27:46 <Lauriat> ack bruce_bailey
14:27:46 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to compare to IBC
14:28:55 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: The standards documents that I do see a lot are the Accessibility building codes . People who are doing more than the minimum are going to do it regardless of a stamp of gold status.
14:29:04 <johnkirkwood> +1 to Bruce
14:29:26 <ChrisLoiselle> BruceB: We should be thinking about having a good flow rather than going above it.
14:29:34 <ChrisLoiselle> floor , not flow.
14:29:36 <jeanne> s/flow/floor
14:29:42 <ChrisLoiselle> thanks Jeanne.
14:29:42 <Wilco> +1
14:29:50 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
14:29:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/27-silver-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
14:30:22 <Azlan> Azlan has left #silver
14:54:42 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver
15:04:43 <sajkaj> sajkaj has left #silver
15:07:34 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #silver
15:50:14 <laura> laura has joined #silver
16:24:40 <JF> JF has left #silver
17:11:21 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver
17:21:07 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver