12:44:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:44:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/25-wcag3-protocols-irc
12:45:35 <Chuck_> rrsagent, make logs world
12:45:44 <Chuck_> rrsagent, generate minutes
12:45:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/25-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Chuck_
12:45:50 <Chuck_> chair:  Chuck_
12:45:50 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:45:58 <Chuck_> Zakim, start meeting
12:45:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:45:59 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Chuck_
12:46:12 <Chuck_> meeting:  Protocols-2022-03-25
12:46:28 <Chuck_> agenda+ Co-lead/facilitation changes
12:46:40 <Chuck_> agenda+ Discuss changing meeting time, to be followed with a doodle pole via email
12:46:48 <Chuck_> agenda+ Brainstorm plain language requirements and government adoption as our first protocol exercise
13:02:12 <ShawnT> present+
13:02:16 <Chuck_> present+
13:02:24 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 1
13:02:24 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Co-lead/facilitation changes -- taken up [from Chuck_]
13:02:34 <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
13:03:28 <MichaelC> ca: JF away for a while, Juanita will step in as co-facilitator
13:03:34 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 2
13:03:34 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Discuss changing meeting time, to be followed with a doodle pole via email -- taken up [from Chuck_]
13:04:29 <Jaunita_George__> Jaunita_George__ has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:04:32 <MichaelC> ca: a few requests for different meeting time, will send around a scheduling poll
13:04:36 <Jaunita_George__> Present+
13:05:10 <MichaelC> looking for candidate slots; for me later in day Friday (Mountain time) good
13:05:35 <MichaelC> mc: Friday sometime about it for me
13:05:37 <ShawnT> Fridays are good for me too
13:06:42 <MichaelC> st: don´t want to overlap WCAG 2.2 meeting
13:06:59 <Jaunita_George__> Fridays between 8-9, 12-1 and after 2:00pm work best for me.
13:07:01 <jenniferS> jenniferS has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:07:15 <MichaelC> ja: European time, so not too late
13:07:24 <jenniferS> present+
13:07:31 <MichaelC> hopefully I can make whatever is schedule, Fridays generally good
13:08:10 <MichaelC> js: current time good, other AG meetings after this, then it gets late in the day Europe
13:08:39 <MichaelC> ca: will make a poll from this input
13:08:53 <MichaelC> until we announce a time change, plan on the current time
13:08:55 <Chuck_> q?
13:08:58 <MichaelC> hopefully we can do that by next week
13:09:02 <Chuck_> zakim, take up item 3
13:09:02 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Brainstorm plain language requirements and government adoption as our first protocol exercise -- taken up [from Chuck_]
13:09:48 <Chuck_> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ274/pdf/PLAW-111publ274.pdf
13:09:57 <Chuck_> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport
13:10:11 <MichaelC> ca: picking up from 2 weeks ago https://www.w3.org/2022/03/11-wcag3-protocols-minutes
13:10:55 <Chuck_> q?
13:11:00 <MichaelC> we were gonna go through above links and exercise the concept
13:11:34 <MichaelC> jg: remember a different resource for plain language
13:11:35 <jenniferS> https://www.plainlanguage.gov
13:13:15 <Chuck_> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport
13:13:46 <MichaelC> ca: ^ is what we wanted to review
13:13:56 <MichaelC> note evaluation is included in it
13:14:24 <MichaelC> two resources were evaluated for 2021
13:14:24 <Chuck_> q+
13:14:31 <Jaunita_George__> q+
13:15:19 <MichaelC> ca: chair hat off, think this is measuring how well following guidance was done
13:15:32 <MichaelC> think we´re more exploring how hard you´re working towards it
13:15:57 <MichaelC> i.e., if you study hard for a test but get a low grade, we care about the effort
13:15:59 <MichaelC> q+
13:16:15 <MichaelC> q+ to say effort also has quality and quantity aspects
13:16:18 <Chuck_> q?
13:16:20 <Chuck_> ack Ch
13:16:33 <MichaelC> think they´re measuring outcomes, which we wanted to avoid
13:16:53 <MichaelC> jg: support a third party measuring results, it´s useful
13:16:57 <Chuck_> q+
13:17:07 <MichaelC> but how that plays out here, it seems to fit with the maturity model work
13:17:17 <Chuck_> ack Jau
13:17:22 <MichaelC> ack me
13:17:22 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say effort also has quality and quantity aspects
13:18:03 <Chuck_> michaelc:  Whether or we are measuring the effort or outcome, we can measure both.  We can measure how much effort, but we shouldn't just measure how hard, but the quality of the effort.
13:18:18 <jenniferS> q+
13:18:23 <Chuck_> michaelc:  We should measure quality of effort.
13:18:32 <MichaelC> ack c
13:18:35 <Jaunita_George__> +1 to MichaelC
13:18:36 <Chuck_> ack Ch
13:18:38 <Chuck_> ack jenn
13:19:08 <MichaelC> js: plain writing act is the law, which this resource supports
13:19:26 <MichaelC> I agree with JF that protocol is about the due diligence to meet the requirements
13:19:30 <Chuck_> q+
13:19:35 <MichaelC> -1 to third party evaluation
13:19:36 <MichaelC> q+
13:20:02 <MichaelC> that may be out of reach for some orgs
13:20:14 <MichaelC> keeping in mind protocols are for more subjective things
13:21:02 <MichaelC> there could be different views of the outcome, even if we agree in the inputs
13:21:03 <Chuck_> ack Chu
13:21:17 <ShawnT> I found the Department of Labor's report :https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting
13:21:40 <MichaelC> ca: +1, though for brainstorming third party review is still a thing to consider
13:22:27 <MichaelC> as having value, though we don´t want to get stuck in that as opposed to the protocol itself
13:22:42 <MichaelC> +1 to the quality of effort metric
13:22:46 <Chuck_> q?
13:22:49 <Chuck_> ack Mich
13:23:01 <jenniferS> The link ShawnT found is interesting.
13:23:04 <ShawnT> Plain Language Quick Reference Guide: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/Plain-Language-Quick-Reference-Guide.pdf
13:23:22 <ShawnT> q+
13:23:25 <Chuck_> michaelc:  I heard 3rd party review as nice to have.  Maybe at highest conformance levels, I don't think it should be a standard part of procotols.
13:23:28 <Chuck_> ack Shawn
13:23:32 <jenniferS> I do wish they'd included showing their homework along with the grade.
13:23:45 <Chuck_> q+ to talk about maturity model
13:24:14 <MichaelC> st: want more of JA perspective
13:24:37 <jenniferS> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting-reports
13:24:55 <MichaelC> ja: I see 2 kinds of docs
13:25:23 <MichaelC> 1) guidance doc, like coga content usable, or plainlanguage guidelines
13:25:38 <MichaelC> still having success-criterion-like content
13:25:59 <MichaelC> 2) process doc, says what you should do to achieve the result
13:26:08 <MichaelC> these two types often get mixed together, making it more confusing
13:26:49 <MichaelC> when we measure / evaluate
13:27:09 <MichaelC> that´s about motivating or supporting use of these docs
13:27:19 <MichaelC> not about end result
13:27:40 <MichaelC> so for me, think we need to describe how to document effort
13:27:56 <MichaelC> q+
13:28:16 <MichaelC> q+ to comment on the two doc types
13:28:47 <Jaunita_George__> That's a good point Jake about differences in languages
13:28:56 <MichaelC> <missed context> note plainlanguage.gov doesn´t cover most languages
13:29:37 <MichaelC> accessibility statement might document the effort you´re putting forth
13:29:49 <MichaelC> but won´t prescribe towards what the effort is put
13:29:50 <Jaunita_George__> Can we require a certain amount of measurable change per statement and a certain amount of statements per year?
13:30:21 <Chuck_> q?
13:30:41 <MichaelC> that forms the basis for accountability
13:30:45 <ShawnT> I think this is what Jack is talking about: https://www.government.nl/accessibility
13:30:53 <MichaelC> ack c
13:30:53 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to talk about maturity model
13:31:18 <MichaelC> ca: I thought a maturity model could be an example of a protocol
13:31:23 <ShawnT> Can I get a link to the maturity model?
13:31:25 <MichaelC> now we´re seeing the reverse as well perhaps?
13:31:29 <Chuck_> ack Ch
13:31:41 <MichaelC> https://w3c.github.io/maturity-model/
13:31:48 <Chuck_> michaelc:  provide maturity model link
13:32:37 <Chuck_> michaelc:  I heard jake differentiating guidance documents (the accessibility benefits) and the process (how you are chasing it).  I think it's good to not mix.
13:33:01 <Chuck_> michaelc:  I see protocols as the process.  We are not in consensus on whether the guidance needs to be part of the protocol.
13:33:24 <Chuck_> michaelc:  or if protocols should leave guidance open ended.  Understand it to be a separate question.
13:33:26 <Chuck_> q?
13:33:29 <Chuck_> ack Mich
13:33:29 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to comment on the two doc types
13:33:58 <MichaelC> ja: in maturity model, have looked at some ISO standards for same thing
13:34:13 <MichaelC> not sure we´re chasing that, but see gray area
13:34:19 <Chuck_> q+ to ask about our consensus
13:34:58 <MichaelC> need better distinction between maturity model work and protocols work
13:35:06 <Jaunita_George__> q+
13:35:09 <MichaelC> so we don´t reinvent each others´ wheels / conflit
13:35:14 <MichaelC> c/conflit/conflict/
13:35:27 <MichaelC> ack c
13:35:27 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about our consensus
13:35:49 <MichaelC> ca: what do you mean about not having consensus?
13:36:04 <Chuck_> ack Ch
13:36:31 <Chuck_> michaelc:  We don't have consensus on how the guidance is incorporated into a protocol.
13:36:36 <Chuck_> ack Jaun
13:37:00 <MichaelC> jg: picking up on the plain language, clearly English specific
13:37:24 <MichaelC> it might be a requirement for a protocol that it be language agnostic
13:37:25 <MichaelC> q+
13:37:45 <MichaelC> also think we need to define our purpose better
13:37:46 <Chuck_> q+
13:37:49 <Chuck_> ack Mich
13:38:17 <jenniferS> q+
13:38:32 <MichaelC> we should define better why we´re doing protocols
13:38:59 <Jaunita_George__> And defining why will help us choose the proper protocols
13:39:11 <Chuck_> michaelc:  I don't think we can require that protocols be language agnostic.  It's an important space.  In Coga if we limit ourselves to language agnostic we eliminate a lot of relevant guidance.
13:39:29 <Chuck_> michaelc:  We need to solve that problem, and there are other domains where it's a problem for us, and that impacts all of WCAG 3.
13:40:10 <Chuck_> michaelc:  Going back, I see protocols at same level as methods.  There could be non-agnostic protocols, and you pick the appropriate one.
13:40:13 <Chuck_> q?
13:40:18 <jenniferS> For what protocols should be doing: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols
13:40:20 <Chuck_> q+ Jake
13:40:23 <MichaelC> ack c
13:40:24 <MichaelC> ca:
13:41:07 <Chuck_> ack Chuck
13:41:11 <jenniferS> From Protocol's definitions: "Decision: Protocols measures inputs and not outcomes"
13:41:16 <Chuck_> ack Jennifer
13:41:16 <MichaelC> ca: going back to exercise, it does seem the report is measuring results, which seems not what we´re chasing
13:41:18 <MichaelC> js:
13:42:04 <jenniferS> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting
13:42:34 <jenniferS> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport
13:42:56 <MichaelC> js: ^ that reports on outcomes, but if you click through, it goes more into what was done
13:43:15 <MichaelC> so really, the plain language act is being used as the protocol
13:43:19 <MichaelC> not plainlanguage.gov
13:43:41 <MichaelC> see examples of inputs being reported on there
13:44:30 <Chuck_> Details can be found on this page:  https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport, under the heading "Agency Activities and Accomplishments"
13:45:15 <jenniferS> https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/
13:45:17 <MichaelC> so it reports on activities they did, but it doesn´t circle back to the requirements and cast it as a protocol
13:45:23 <Jaunita_George__> q+
13:45:25 <Chuck_> q+ to ask Jennifer about "activities and accomplishments"
13:45:56 <MichaelC> pointing to the specific guidance in context of activities you´re following would enhance it
13:46:52 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:47:06 <MichaelC> I extrapolate, perhaps people can use the law as the protocol, and show their work
13:48:17 <Chuck_> ack Jake
13:49:28 <MichaelC> ja: think we should allow orgs to pick their protocols
13:49:40 <Jaunita_George__> +1 to Jake
13:49:40 <MichaelC> our job is just to define what a protocol is for this purpose
13:50:05 <MichaelC> q+
13:50:44 <MichaelC> the protocol shouldn´t define the guidance you follow
13:51:03 <MichaelC> just help you pick it and report on it
13:52:01 <MichaelC> q+ to relate us-defined, self-defined, and guidance
13:52:12 <Chuck_> ack Jau
13:52:36 <MichaelC> jg: +1 in general
13:52:37 <Jaunita_George__> https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/10/14/the-enron-code-of-ethics-handbook-from-july-2000-is-a-fascinating-read/
13:52:47 <MichaelC> considering small orgs that can´t follow big fancy protocols
13:53:24 <MichaelC> <example of a large company with industry-leading ethics statement, which had a spectacular ethics meltdown>
13:53:28 <jenniferS> q+
13:53:57 <MichaelC> so just having the protocol isn´t enough
13:54:07 <jenniferS> Good point, @Jaunita_George! It sounds like the protocols could be required to be from a non-connected source?
13:54:12 <Chuck_> q?
13:54:13 <MichaelC> large orgs can find loopholes
13:54:19 <MichaelC> smaller orgs, more difficult
13:54:23 <MichaelC> ack c
13:54:23 <Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask Jennifer about "activities and accomplishments"
13:55:04 <MichaelC> ca: back to exercise, does the candidate protocol fit? we´re exploring the edges
13:55:13 <MichaelC> q+ to suggest purpose of exercise
13:55:33 <MichaelC> I don´t see the evaluation as lining up in the protocol
13:55:47 <MichaelC> but see evidence of orgs showing their effort
13:55:56 <MichaelC> which is more what I think a protocol is
13:56:06 <MichaelC> don´t think all protocols have to be this granular
13:56:10 <Chuck_> q?
13:56:13 <MichaelC> ack me
13:56:13 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to relate us-defined, self-defined, and guidance and to suggest purpose of exercise
13:56:15 <Chuck_> ack Mich
13:56:39 <Chuck_> michaelc:  I didn't interpret this as lets look at plain language.  The purpose is to see what we like about it.
13:56:58 <Chuck_> michaelc:  We should do that with other examples.  This is a tangent, but it will be important in the future.
13:57:28 <Chuck_> michaelc:  We have to decide if protocols are defined by maintainers of wcag3 or if they are self defined.  If we don't provide any definitions...  that's impacting what we are thinking about the conversation.
13:57:56 <Chuck_> michaelc:  We need to provide some protocols for orgs that want somethings canned, and we should provide a means to write protocols for orgs that want to create their own.  We need to define requirements clearly.
13:58:31 <Chuck_> michaelc:  I think protocols can be big or small.  They can be general, they can be specific.  Those are not part of this exercise, but I think we are getting tangled up in these questions.
13:58:33 <Chuck_> q?
13:58:44 <Chuck_> ack jennifer
13:59:11 <MichaelC> js: +1 that orgs might not use protocols they developed themselves
13:59:41 <MichaelC> ca: out of time!
13:59:46 <MichaelC> scheduling poll forthcoming
14:00:01 <MichaelC> next meeting at this time next Friday, until otherwise announced
14:00:05 <MichaelC> present+
14:00:08 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
14:00:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/25-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC
14:00:32 <jenniferS> jenniferS has left #wcag3-protocols
14:00:56 <MichaelC> scribeOptions: -final
14:00:58 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
14:00:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/25-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC
14:01:01 <MichaelC> rrsagent, bye
14:01:01 <RRSAgent> I see no action items