11:57:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
11:57:33 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/15-wcag3-protocols-irc
11:57:46 <jaunita_george_> Zakim, start meeting
11:57:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
11:57:47 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jaunita_george_
11:58:17 <jaunita_george_> meeting:  AGWG-2022-04-15
11:58:36 <jaunita_george_> chair:  Jaunita George
11:58:53 <jaunita_george_> rrsagent, make logs world
11:59:32 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag3-protocols
11:59:46 <jaunita_george_> agenda+ Survey results discussion
11:59:58 <jaunita_george_> agenda + Next steps for the group
12:00:06 <JF> JF has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:00:17 <JF> Present+
12:00:30 <Rachael> present+
12:01:10 <MichaelC> present+
12:01:12 <jaunita_george_> Present+
12:01:15 <bruce_bailey> present+
12:01:20 <jaunita_george_> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/
12:01:35 <bruce_bailey> scribe:bruce_bailey
12:01:58 <jaunita_george_> zakim, take up item 1
12:01:58 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Survey results discussion -- taken up [from jaunita_george_]
12:01:58 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda
12:02:00 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:02:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agenda', bruce_bailey
12:02:10 <JF> agenda?
12:03:06 <Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results
12:03:06 <JF> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results
12:03:50 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results#xq2
12:04:23 <bruce_bailey> Jaunita George:  going through survey results and discussion
12:04:31 <bruce_bailey> ... 6 respondants
12:05:03 <bruce_bailey> ... 1st survey item on definition for "protocols"
12:05:14 <bruce_bailey> ...split result, 2 ea.
12:05:58 <bruce_bailey> ... in survey, JF noted that protocols sit beside requirements, not above them
12:06:43 <bruce_bailey> ... the guidance in a protocol might not have measurable or testable results...
12:07:16 <bruce_bailey> ... plain language might just say something like "use your words carefully"
12:07:53 <bruce_bailey> (please see survey results)
12:08:28 <bruce_bailey> JG:  continues to go over survey results
12:09:06 <bruce_bailey> ... Chuck in survey commented that both A and B could be needed
12:10:03 <bruce_bailey> (JG continues to read survey comments)
12:10:45 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Second question was on how protocols might be used to test success.
12:11:14 <bruce_bailey> ... 6 results, again mixed results, but not evenly split
12:11:29 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results#xq3
12:11:37 <jeanne> q+ to say I could be ok with Option B as long as there is an objective minimum
12:11:42 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results#xq2
12:11:46 <JF> Q
12:11:51 <jaunita_george_> ack jeanne
12:11:51 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say I could be ok with Option B as long as there is an objective minimum
12:11:52 <bruce_bailey> 1. What do you consider the intent of protocols in relation to conformance?
12:11:57 <Rachael> q+ to say that the intent of question 1 was not the minimum baseline
12:12:09 <bruce_bailey> A. Protocols are above or beyond any type of conformance, aka “extra credit”
12:12:36 <jaunita_george_> q?
12:12:43 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  I would be okay with option B, but I have concerns for some "gaming the system" otherwise it is okay.
12:12:45 <JF> Q+
12:13:00 <Rachael> q-
12:13:11 <jaunita_george_> ack jf
12:13:16 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I did not read option B as a minimum bar, just that it related to conformance.
12:13:20 <MichaelC> +1 to RBM
12:13:50 <Rachael> q+ to suggest that conformance is out of scope of this meeting
12:14:13 <Rachael> ack Rachael
12:14:13 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest that conformance is out of scope of this meeting
12:14:17 <bruce_bailey> JF:  I still feel strongly that is not reasonable for us to expect much progress on protocol until we have better clarity with the WCAG3 conformance model...
12:14:18 <jaunita_george_> ack Rachael
12:14:41 <bruce_bailey> ... just too hard to know how to talk about protocol without metrics of scoring and points.
12:15:08 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I hear you John, and this is something the chairs have discussed.
12:15:20 <bruce_bailey> JF:  It seems like a blocker to me.
12:15:43 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Point noted, I would ask that you let us move on.  (JF agrees.)
12:16:09 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Noting that there has been discussion for option B,
12:16:40 <bruce_bailey> ... might be that WCAG3 only requires attestation that some process has been followed.
12:16:50 <bruce_bailey> B. Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conformance is TB
12:17:00 <bruce_bailey> C. Something else (please provide an explanation in comment
12:17:43 <Rachael> q+
12:17:47 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results#xq3
12:18:40 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  Before we move on to question 2, I would ask if we can't boil results from Question 1 down a bit more.
12:19:14 <bruce_bailey> JG:  As noted, 3 choices offered, 2 votes for each.
12:19:22 <jaunita_george_> A. Protocols are above or beyond any type of conformance, aka “extra credit”  B. Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conformance is TBD
12:19:27 <jeanne> I would say that my proposal is that "Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed.
12:19:56 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Focus on option A, is there a way to change that choice for the better?
12:20:11 <bruce_bailey> JF:  What do you mean by "extra credit"
12:20:36 <jaunita_george_> Above and beyond what the standards require
12:20:38 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Something beyond what is required by guidelines or methods.  But this is not fixed.
12:21:18 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Jennifer is not on the call today, and I am willing to consider B.  So we can we work on that one?
12:21:26 <Rachael> q+
12:21:39 <bruce_bailey> B. Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conforma
12:21:52 <jaunita_george_> ack Rachael
12:22:11 <Rachael> Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed.
12:22:23 <bruce_bailey> JG:  from survey, I would say that my proposal is that "Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed.
12:22:54 <bruce_bailey> JF:  ask for clarification on that
12:22:58 <Rachael> I thnk the how is question 2
12:23:09 <Rachael> q+
12:23:16 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  that is TBD
12:23:18 <jaunita_george_> Resolution: Change Option B from: Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conformance is TBD to: "Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed."
12:23:29 <bruce_bailey> JF:  So we take the claim at face values
12:23:54 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  We might ask for documentation, but this is one of the details to work out.
12:24:02 <JF> Q+
12:24:20 <Rachael> q-
12:24:22 <bruce_bailey> JG:  I would ask that we table that for now, see if we cannot agree in principle.
12:24:34 <bruce_bailey> Racheal:  I think this is question 2
12:24:59 <bruce_bailey> JF:  I agree with Jeanne, that making declarations is what I had presumed.
12:25:31 <bruce_bailey> ... I come up short on how we assess those claims
12:25:34 <Rachael> ack jf
12:25:38 <bruce_bailey> agenda?
12:25:52 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results#xq3
12:26:01 <bruce_bailey> 2. How do you think protocols should assess success?
12:26:10 <bruce_bailey> A. Protocols provide a way to evaluate whether subjective WCAG requirements have been met. (In other words, protocols evaluate the inputs and the outcomes.)
12:26:17 <bruce_bailey> B. Protocols test the inputs against what WCAG has required
12:26:24 <bruce_bailey> C. Something else (please explain in comments)
12:26:50 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Survey comments are lengthy, so not reading.
12:27:34 <bruce_bailey> JF:  Claims can be lengthy, and it can be very difficult for a third party to evaluate.
12:28:17 <bruce_bailey> ... example in survey is owner saying they have taking a course on plain language and are following PL principles...
12:28:43 <bruce_bailey> ... how can third party refute or deny that sort of claim?
12:29:13 <bruce_bailey> JG:  reads Jennifer Strickland comment.
12:29:39 <bruce_bailey> JG calls on Jeanne to comment on her survey comment.
12:29:55 <jeanne> Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes can not be measured. We can measure subjective tests without using protocols. Where protocols are useful are in measuring and evaluating processes
12:30:25 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Basically I noted that it is the case that we can measure subjective tests without using protocols.  And I provided an example.
12:30:46 <bruce_bailey> JG reads Chuck (Charles Adam) comment from survey.
12:31:17 <bruce_bailey> JG:  For moving forward, I find two streams...
12:31:24 <MichaelC> q+
12:32:07 <bruce_bailey> ...option A is something to the effect that protocols can be agnostic to outcomes, it is just reflecting inputs.
12:32:24 <JF> +1 to not prescribing steps
12:32:37 <bruce_bailey> Michael Cooper:  This is a little different than I had been anticipating...
12:33:01 <bruce_bailey> ... that WCAG3 should not be process or steps, just guidelines and methods.
12:33:08 <Rachael> for me that is correct as well
12:33:40 <bruce_bailey> MC:  If protocols do not provide this testability, they are not as interesting to me.
12:33:47 <jeanne> +1 to Michael
12:33:49 <MichaelC> ¨not interesting¨ doesn´t mean oppose work, means I need to look elsewhere to solve the problem
12:33:52 <bruce_bailey> On to survey question 3, on times.
12:34:04 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results#xq4
12:34:20 <bruce_bailey> Should we alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time) to allow for greater participation?
12:34:33 <bruce_bailey> 4 yes, 2 other.
12:34:50 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Is anyone strongly opposed between alternating?
12:35:16 <Rachael> q+
12:35:24 <bruce_bailey> MC:  I am not opposed, I am just saying we need a plan for success.
12:35:32 <Rachael> q-
12:35:40 <MichaelC> ack me
12:35:43 <JF> +1 to mcooper
12:35:46 <bruce_bailey> ... two different times might result in two different sense for consensus
12:35:57 <jaunita_george_> Proposed resolution: We should alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time)
12:36:07 <jeanne> q+ to say that there is a core group that both times work for
12:36:28 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Would anyone care to speak against alternating times.
12:36:54 <bruce_bailey> s/alternating times./alternating times?/
12:37:06 <jaunita_george_> +1
12:37:08 <Rachael> +1
12:37:08 <jeanne> +1
12:37:10 <MichaelC> +1
12:37:13 <JF> 0
12:37:15 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  I think there are only two people, so we might try an keep them looped in.
12:37:36 <jaunita_george_> Resolution: We should alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time)
12:38:33 <jaunita_george_> RESOLUTION:  We should alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time)
12:38:56 <bruce_bailey> Question 4, https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-defining-protocols/results#xq5
12:39:11 <bruce_bailey> 4. Would you support creating a group Slack channel in the A11y Slack to help facilitate real-time communication on issues, rather than just relying on email? We could share out a summary of the discussions weekly for the rest of the group/public record.
12:39:32 <MichaelC> q+
12:39:43 <bruce_bailey> JG:  tallys survey result
12:39:45 <jaunita_george_> q?
12:39:51 <jeanne> ack je
12:39:51 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that there is a core group that both times work for
12:39:51 <Rachael> ack jeanne
12:39:57 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
12:40:24 <jeanne> q+ to say that there is a w3c channel for wcag3 we could try
12:40:35 <bruce_bailey> MC:  I find Slack not to be very friendly, but I am not opposed to others using it.
12:40:58 <JF> Q+
12:41:14 <jaunita_george_> ack jeanne
12:41:14 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that there is a w3c channel for wcag3 we could try
12:41:19 <jaunita_george_> ack JF
12:41:21 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  There is a W3C slack channel and WCAG community -- so it exists and people could try it -- it not much used.
12:41:54 <bruce_bailey> JF:  I will speak against using Slack.  On my company laptop, it is blocked.
12:42:04 <jaunita_george_> q+
12:42:16 <bruce_bailey> ... might as well use Teams.  We have IRC, and that seems to work okay.
12:42:47 <bruce_bailey> JG:  I use Slack for my day job, and it has been pretty good, so I am open to adding it as a channel.
12:42:56 <bruce_bailey> q+
12:43:11 <jeanne> ack bru
12:43:28 <Rachael> ack jaunita_george_
12:43:57 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  I don't use twitter either.  Fine for others, but please come back to me if you think there is something there I should be responsive to.
12:44:30 <jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Using the WCAG3 channel on Slack that we can use for Protocols discussions.
12:44:43 <MichaelC> +0
12:44:45 <JF> -100
12:44:47 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  Asks question to MC, and will send out some Slack invites.
12:44:56 <Rachael> -.5
12:44:59 <jaunita_george_> 0
12:45:03 <jeanne> 0 - although an IRC client would also work
12:45:37 <bruce_bailey> JG:  I will call this as resolution which does not pass.
12:45:54 <jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Not use Slack for Protocols discussions.
12:46:00 <jaunita_george_> 0
12:46:15 <JF> +1 to NOY using Slack at this time
12:46:19 <Rachael> +1
12:46:20 <MichaelC> +.5
12:46:23 <jeanne> +.5
12:46:23 <JF> s/NOY/NOT
12:46:31 <Rachael> q+
12:46:49 <MichaelC> (I agree to not use it for *official*, wouldn´t say others are forbidden)
12:47:08 <bruce_bailey> Rachael suggest adding "at this time" to resolution
12:47:32 <jaunita_george_> RESOLUTION: Not use Slack for official Protocols discussions at this time.
12:47:41 <JF> +1
12:47:50 <bruce_bailey> no objects from others for others to use
12:47:58 <jaunita_george_> Zakim, take up next item
12:47:58 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jaunita_george_
12:48:03 <bruce_bailey> s/no objects/no objections/
12:48:13 <Rachael> q?
12:48:15 <Rachael> ack Rachael
12:48:23 <jaunita_george_> Zakim, take up next item
12:48:23 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Next steps for the group -- taken up [from jaunita_george_]
12:48:56 <bruce_bailey> JG:  There seem to be two camps for protocols
12:49:05 <MichaelC> q+
12:49:13 <bruce_bailey> ... so I want to explore idea of working on two approaches in parallel
12:49:39 <MichaelC> ack me
12:49:40 <bruce_bailey> MC:  I am in favor of that.  Each group should focus on their own idea, and not try to tell the other group.
12:49:43 <Rachael> q+
12:49:53 <bruce_bailey> q+ to suggest time box
12:50:03 <jaunita_george_> ack Rachael
12:50:13 <bruce_bailey> Rachael:  I agree that exploring both idea fully would be a good next step
12:51:11 <bruce_bailey> bruce suggests firm dates to circle back, because he is optimistic that both groups can then later come to terms.
12:51:22 <jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Explore both areas of Protocols consensus
12:51:29 <bruce_bailey> q?
12:51:32 <bruce_bailey> ack m
12:51:34 <bruce_bailey> ack me
12:51:34 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest time box
12:51:37 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
12:51:51 <MichaelC> +1
12:51:52 <jeanne> +1
12:51:54 <jaunita_george_> +1
12:51:56 <Rachael> +1 to exploring both wiht a time box
12:52:34 <jaunita_george_> RESOLUTION: Explore both areas of Protocols consensus
12:53:27 <jeanne> q+ to propose breakout room
12:53:34 <MichaelC> q+
12:53:37 <Rachael> ack jeanne
12:53:37 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose breakout room
12:53:38 <jeanne> ack jea
12:53:59 <bruce_bailey> JG:  proposes splitting the meeting time
12:54:06 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
12:54:32 <JF> +1 to Michael's concern of splintering the discussion even more
12:54:34 <bruce_bailey> Jeanne:  i will propose using breaking out rooms
12:54:47 <Rachael> +1 to breakout rooms and a short touch base at the end of each meeting
12:54:54 <bruce_bailey> MC:  I am worried that different times will devolve into A and B teams
12:55:02 <bruce_bailey> q+ t
12:55:11 <Rachael> ack t
12:55:54 <JF> Q+
12:56:11 <bruce_bailey> bruce:  i think i might be able to contribute to both groups
12:56:37 <bruce_bailey> JG:  asks if bruce might split his time
12:56:44 <MichaelC> q+
12:56:48 <bruce_bailey> bruce says he does not think so
12:56:52 <Rachael> ack jf
12:57:05 <JF> ack me
12:57:09 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
12:57:22 <bruce_bailey> JF:  I am not understanding mechanics of breakout room in practice
12:57:33 <bruce_bailey> JG:  asks for clarification
12:58:02 <jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: We should split the Protocols group time to advance both theories of how Protocols can be used
12:58:06 <bruce_bailey> MC:  If we go into this with good faith, I think we can work out the details
12:58:17 <jaunita_george_> +1
12:58:25 <Rachael> +1 and work out mechanics in good faith
12:58:25 <MichaelC> +.5
12:58:26 <jeanne> +1
12:58:32 <JF> Conditional +1 pending understanding the mechanics of this
12:59:14 <bruce_bailey> JG:  we seem to have consensus, with the caveat of people understanding the mechanics
12:59:27 <bruce_bailey> q+ to confirm next meeting time
12:59:48 <Rachael> ack bruce_bailey
12:59:48 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to confirm next meeting time
12:59:57 <bruce_bailey> JF:  suggest fleshing out how this would work first
13:00:00 <Rachael> +1 to noon next week
13:00:05 <jeanne> +1 to noon
13:00:08 <JF> +1 to noon
13:00:25 <bruce_bailey> JG:  table split protocol conversation for now
13:00:50 <Rachael> +1 to trying that
13:00:52 <bruce_bailey> JG:  Next meeting next Friday at NOON eastern
13:01:07 <bruce_bailey> zakim, make minutes
13:01:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', bruce_bailey
13:01:15 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
13:01:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/15-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
13:01:49 <jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Table discussion of splitting discussion during meetings until we have mechanics worked out but can split the time to both theories next week to keep discussion and work moving
13:02:05 <jaunita_george_> +1
13:02:09 <MichaelC> +1
13:02:13 <jeanne> +1
13:02:16 <Rachael> +1
13:02:16 <JF> +1
13:02:23 <jaunita_george_> Resolution: Table discussion of splitting discussion during meetings until we have mechanics worked out but can split the time to both theories next week to keep discussion and work moving
13:02:30 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
13:02:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/15-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
13:02:47 <jeanne> present+
13:02:52 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
13:02:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/15-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
13:03:52 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION: Table discussion of splitting discussion during meetings until we have mechanics worked out but can split the time to both theories next week to keep discussion and work moving