22 April 2022


.5, bruce_bailey, Jaunita_George, jaunita_george_, jeanne, JenniferS, JenniferS_, JF, Le, mbgower, MichaelC, Rachael, ShawnT, SuzanneTaylor
jeanne, mbgower

Meeting minutes

breakout groups

<Jaunita_George> https://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html

There were 2 areas of consensus

Jaunita: We can start the breakout groups at 12:08

Jaunita: each group can meet and discuss those areas of consensus

Jaunita: Breakout 1 will be those folks who believe protocols should be used to add points.

Jaunita: Breakout 2 will be for those who believe that protocols should be used to create testable guidance for

Jaunita: WCAG 3

Jaunita: Does anyone object?

Rachael: I've named the rooms Protocols add points & Testable guidance

<Rachael> protocols add points and testable guidance

Jaunita: Team names might be good, along with the definition

<ShawnT> Can we bounce from one room to another

We only have me, Michael and Sheri on Testable guidance

[breakout rooms end]

Jaunita: we're all back in the main room. We're going to go back to IRC

Jaunita: We're doing a report out from both teams. Team 1 or 2 first? Team 1 being the 'add points'

Jennifer: This was a great opportunity.

Jennifer: I thought about this differently before.

Jennifer: We talked about a minimum of those objective criteria and a percentage being subjective -- using protocols to do the subjective -- would help you get to the minimum, would be great.

Jennifer: I'd like the opportunity to continue the converation

JF: Talking about he difference between must and should was an "ah ha" moment.

JF: Should is what we'd like them to do.

JF: Jennifer had talked about a conversation with a designer that 'that's just a should, so we don't have to do that'

Le: Incentivizing the "shoulds" versus the "musts" is important

Le: so much of COGA stuff is subjective. it allows us to have a value add for that. Vital

Jaunita: I want to keep us moving. Team 1. Do we have a team name to use in the future?

Le: Points for protocol?

Jaunita: I think that's a great name. Anyone else from team 1?

<ShawnT> +1

<Jaunita_George> Draft resolution: Team 1's name is Points for Protocol

<JF> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Le> +1

<JenniferS> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

0 sounds fine, but I don't have enough info to have a solid opinion :)

RESOLUTION: Team 1's name is Points for Protocol

Jaunita: Did you have a working document to paste into IRC?

<ShawnT> no

Jaunita: In future work, if you could collect those thoughts that would be great.

JF: I think it should go into the github wiki

Jaunita: Put your team name with the wiki so we can separate the 2 teams

Jaunita: Team 2, Rachael?

Rachael: We were talking about a situation where the outcomes aren't measured.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/

Rachael: We talked about Plan language and what that might look like, and started the conversation.

Rachael: Like group 1, we would benefit from continuing conversation to come up with detailed points

<ShawnT> [Home ยท w3c/silver Wiki](https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki)

Rachael: Would Evaluating procedures make sense?

<jeanne> +1

<Jaunita_George> Draft resolution: Team 2's name is Evaluating Procedures

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Rachael> +1


<jeanne> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> 0

<JF> 0

<JenniferS> +1

RESOLUTION: Team 2's name is Evaluating Procedures

Jaunita: Earlier we discussed recording our notes. For team 2, I think we can use the google doc and link to the wiki

Jaunita: How did this work for folks?

<JenniferS> Working for me

JG: Is everyone ok with this procedure for working with the breakout, the reporting, and resolutions

<Jaunita_George> ack

JF: We have two different proposals coming up, and they both have value. We need to bring it together and what will we call the alternative proposal?

<ShawnT> +1

RMB: We will be bringing both proposals to the larger group so that they can approve a direction.

<Jaunita_George> Draft resolution: Continue breakout groups to further both teams' work

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Le> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<JenniferS> +1

<mbgower> +1

JSp: +1

RESOLUTION: Continue breakout groups to further both teams' work

<JF> +.5 - concern that we time box this

<mbgower> I also will only be attending the later calls

JG: We will timebox it and come back at 12:35

JF: How many meetings before we stop having breakout rooms?

JG: Until we have 2 proposals

JF: I mean how many weeks

<JenniferS> A+

MC: I don't want to be locked into a target, we can target a moonth and adjust as we get close

<JF> +1 to Jen's suggestiong

JSt: I think Sheri asked if we have to stay on the same teams. I think we can go back and forth. I think we need two mornings to go with the two noons.

MC: I don't agree with moving between teams. The idea was for a group to mature each idea and not have people advocating for a different view holding up progress

<mbgower> I agree I'm leery of splitting this up too, especially because I think we want to stitch them together.

<mbgower> thanks!

JG: We can continue this next week.

Summary of resolutions

  1. Team 1's name is Points for Protocol
  2. Team 2's name is Evaluating Procedures
  3. Continue breakout groups to further both teams' work
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/Jennifer: so much of COGA stuff/Le: so much of COGA stuff

Succeeded: s/Jennifer: Incentivizing the "shoulds"/Le: Incentivizing the "shoulds"

Maybe present: Jaunita, Jennifer, JG, JSp, JSt, MC, RMB