IRC log of silver-conf on 2021-07-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:40:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:40:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:40:40 [sajkaj]
Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:40:47 [sajkaj]
Date: 22 Jul 2021
15:40:52 [sajkaj]
Chair: sajkaj
15:40:57 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, make log public
15:41:02 [sajkaj]
15:41:05 [sajkaj]
Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:41:05 [sajkaj]
agenda+ User Generated
15:41:08 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Other Business
15:41:10 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Be Done
15:41:24 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:41:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sajkaj
15:44:27 [sajkaj]
15:44:44 [sajkaj]
Regrets: Wilco
15:57:47 [ToddLibby]
ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf
15:58:38 [JF]
JF has joined #silver-conf
15:58:46 [JF]
15:58:55 [JF]
15:59:03 [sajkaj]
present+ Jeanne
15:59:53 [ToddLibby]
16:00:12 [ToddLibby]
I’m irc only for a bit.
16:01:34 [PeterKorn]
PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
16:01:37 [PeterKorn]
16:02:32 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:02:40 [Azlan]
16:02:47 [JF]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:47 [Zakim]
Present: sajkaj, JF, Jeanne, ToddLibby, PeterKorn, Azlan
16:02:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Azlan, PeterKorn, JF, ToddLibby, RRSAgent, Zakim, sajkaj, MichaelC, trackbot, Rachael
16:02:57 [JF]
scribe: JF
16:03:06 [JF]
zakim, next item
16:03:07 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:03:22 [JF]
SJ: simple agenda, pick up from last time
16:03:53 [JF]
goal from last week was to proposed something for "licensed media"
16:04:30 [JF]
but so far we remain focused on "user-generated" - will present to the larger group (AG WG) on Aug. 3rd
16:04:50 [sajkaj]
16:05:01 [JF]
... JS and a few others met with Makoto, who has a take-away task
16:05:05 [JF]
zakim, next item
16:05:05 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- User Generated -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:05:20 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #silver-conf
16:05:37 [JF]
PK: had a thought: "Limited Rights" as opposed to "licensed media"
16:05:50 [JF]
JS: agree, currently soliciting ideas and suggestions
16:06:09 [JF]
Jeanne: sounds a tad legal, but a good start
16:06:26 [JF]
JS: agreed, even though that is the precise issue we are trying to resolve
16:07:08 [JF]
PK: we can iterate on that - maybe "Limited Authority"?
16:07:19 [JF]
16:07:41 [sajkaj]
ack jf
16:09:09 [KimD]
KimD has joined #silver-conf
16:09:41 [KimD]
16:09:42 [JF]
JF: brings up EARL as a possible piece of the puzzle for Limited (TBD)
16:09:52 [JF]
... to keep with that discussion
16:10:24 [JF]
JS: overview of changes: rewritten editors not at top
16:10:36 [JF]
...multiple versions. Hoping this is clearer now
16:10:47 [JF]
...don't consider it finished, but hope it brings clarity
16:11:14 [JF]
...majority of tweaks are above definition(s). W@as seeking 'plain language' explanations
16:11:28 [JF]
...a few additional edits in the mid-section
16:11:34 [Bryan]
Bryan has joined #silver-conf
16:11:44 [Bryan]
16:11:45 [JF]
16:11:55 [PeterKorn]
16:12:10 [JF]
JS: no changes to use-cases
16:12:23 [JF]
PK: noted there was an HTML typo - made a fix
16:12:27 [PeterKorn]
ack pet
16:13:05 [JF]
Jeanne: are we planning to have a github pull request for this? for next week?
16:13:08 [PeterKorn]
+1 to that idea Jeanne
16:13:18 [JF]
JS: do not believe next week is target date - target is for Aug 3
16:13:30 [JF]
Jeanne: will need to be done before then
16:13:58 [JF]
JS: we can create pull requests, but is still incomplete. Waiting on specific language from Makoto's group
16:14:52 [JF]
...we also need to ensure that this is all clear: is the document layout clear, definitions. etc?
16:15:15 [JF]
...We probably have most of that, but may need more questions.
16:15:36 [JF]
PK: [reads aloud the content - section for reviewers]
16:19:15 [JF]
...covered the "Editor's Note" section
16:19:37 [JF]
Jeanne: asking about a crosslink with FB - who is responsible?
16:19:53 [JF]
PK: we've been kicking this around
16:20:04 [JF]
JS: in section above Editor's not
16:20:38 [PeterKorn]
"User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. Any content provided by employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers of the publisher is not User Generated content.
16:20:39 [JF]
s/Editor's not/Editor's note
16:20:48 [PeterKorn]
"Similarly, content created by publishers on social media platforms, or on behalf of publishers on platforms such as social media (or other crowd sourced platforms), is also not User Generated content"
16:21:00 [JF]
JS: the point of that section is to 'rope off' what is or isn't in scope
16:21:35 [JF]
16:21:59 [JF]
PK: that last section is where I have concerns
16:22:17 [JF]
Jeanne: should that only be in editor's note, or elsewhere
16:22:27 [JF]
PK: would prefer to ONLY see in editor's note
16:23:03 [JF]
...also don't see clarity in that topic... it's outside of the note, but do not see it clearly in definitions.
16:23:21 [JF]
...we also should not be defining what social media platforms can or cannot do
16:23:32 [ToddLibby]
ToddLibby has left #silver-conf
16:23:37 [JF]
JS: we are planning on doing that guideline by guideline
16:23:43 [ToddLibby_]
ToddLibby_ has joined #silver-conf
16:23:49 [JF]
PK: would prefer to leave it open for public feedback
16:24:53 [JF]
PK: as mentioned last week.. this is a potential hole. If company ONLY has a social media presence we do not want commercial content to be excluded
16:25:14 [JF]
JS: there was talk of that appearng in seperate guidance
16:25:47 [JF]
PK: not sure we had agreement. Issue is defining who is authorized (and when) to be "official spokesperson" versus private citizen
16:26:15 [PeterKorn]
16:26:15 [sajkaj]
16:26:20 [sajkaj]
ack jf
16:27:17 [JF]
JF: don't see how anyone could enforce those distincitons
16:27:59 [JF]
PK: also, where to define the company sponsored sub-set (if company retweets somebody else's content...)
16:28:07 [PeterKorn]
16:28:08 [sajkaj]
16:28:34 [JF]
...don't think we should go down that road. The other concern is what we want - the bulk of comments - is on the overall proposal
16:28:46 [JF]
but this Editor's Note is drawing all the attention
16:29:54 [JF]
JS: seems there are w 2 questions: corporate responsibility (who and when), and then the "hosting platform's responsability"
16:30:15 [JF]
PK: we spend a fair bit of time with that already - but that then leads to the current issue
16:31:30 [Bryan]
16:31:38 [JF]
PK: the concern is understood, but believes we are drilling in too deep - we have guidance at this time
16:31:52 [sajkaj]
ack br
16:32:18 [JF]
BT: if someone uploads a video with flashing (critical error) - who should be responsable?
16:32:27 [JF]
JS: that should be able to be tested for
16:32:44 [sajkaj]
16:33:01 [JF]
PK: we do have something there - in discussions with Makoto. Part of the responsibilities is that you also need to be advising the user on parameters
16:33:18 [JF]
...and using tools (AI, etc.) to help ameliorate those issues
16:33:26 [JF]
JS: in Steps to Conform section
16:34:12 [JF]
[discussion - may have lost some content]
16:34:32 [JF]
PK: to the larger question, we do speak to that generally [JF: did?]
16:35:12 [JF]
BT: do we look at the severity level as well? We can't solve everything, but based on severity should we focus on that?
16:35:29 [JF]
PK: we note that until we have a new scoring proposal we will have to wait
16:36:54 [JF]
PK & JS: looking at versions of previous editions - will need to do some cleanup
16:38:04 [sajkaj]
16:38:17 [JF]
PK: is there disagreement with suggesting that this is too big of a 'can of worms'?
16:38:32 [JF]
and that we will need to come back with guidance there?
16:39:02 [JF]
JS: inclined that we want to say 'something' (but not too much). Goal is to solicit comments. There is a balance that needs to be met
16:39:18 [JF]
we also had a note that hosting platforms need to do some of the lifting there
16:39:21 [KimD]
16:41:49 [JF]
[discussion on how far we can 'push' platforms]
16:42:05 [JF]
JF: is it (will it be) a MUST, SHOULD, or MAY?
16:43:28 [PeterKorn]
16:43:47 [sajkaj]
16:43:56 [JF]
JF: affordance versus quality issue
16:44:15 [sajkaj]
ack kim
16:44:25 [JF]
KD: don't want to go down a rabbit hole, but anticipates question tp define
16:44:34 [JF]
what is 'social media'
16:45:14 [JF]
we have platforms/tools that allows for hosting of content (legal evidence for example) that isn't 'social' but it is 'user generated'
16:45:30 [JF]
Jeanne: believe we had made that distinction
16:46:10 [JF]
KD: hope for that. But google definitions muddy the water. So do we need to more carefully define "social media" in this situation
16:46:49 [JF]
PK: believes defining social media is a rat-hole. Believes that key sentence is the one that focuses on "who" the contributor is
16:47:28 [PeterKorn]
16:47:36 [JF]
...the distinction being the ability to add content is not "public' - requires some kind of authorization
16:47:38 [sajkaj]
ack kim
16:47:41 [sajkaj]
ack pe
16:48:19 [JF]
PK: but hearing that we need to do more work on the wiki page. Hoping for draft from Makoto, and also to address more clearly the questions raised at AG WG
16:49:56 [PeterKorn]
"Key question: how to treat content submitted by representatives of a company via the user-generated contribution mechanisms of a site."
16:52:56 [JF]
JF: wonders if providing an example (e.g. social media marketing role in an Org)
16:56:01 [JF]
[discussion about roles - and how this is a fundamental question]
16:56:09 [sajkaj]
16:57:12 [JF]
Jeanne: one of the concerns raised in AG WG...
16:57:26 [JF]
JS: is this a legal question of a WCAG question
16:58:05 [JF]
KD: if a post says "Thomson Reuters" that's pretty clear, but if it doesn't then...
16:59:32 [JF]
JS: want to get higher quality alt texts, but the second question really is about "community groups"
17:00:41 [PeterKorn]
"We seek feedback on how to treat content submitted by organizations via the entry-points for user-generated contributions to a site (e.g., official contributions to the social media presence of an organization), as well as content contributed by someone who is member of an organization where the contribution relates in some way to that organization (e.g. an employee of an entertainment company replying to post by a fan on an unofficia[CUT]
17:00:54 [PeterKorn]
"work for that entertainment company)"
17:02:31 [ToddLibby_]
ToddLibby_ has left #silver-conf
17:03:08 [KimD]
KimD has left #silver-conf
17:03:13 [Azlan]
Azlan has left #silver-conf
17:03:19 [sajkaj]
zakim, bye
17:03:19 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, JF, Jeanne, ToddLibby, PeterKorn, Azlan, KimD, Bryan
17:03:20 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #silver-conf
17:03:26 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:03:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sajkaj
17:13:31 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, bye
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items