IRC log of wcag3-protocols on 2022-05-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:07:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
15:07:56 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/05/06-wcag3-protocols-irc
15:08:03 [Rachael]
zakim, start meeting
15:08:03 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:08:04 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Rachael
15:09:52 [Rachael]
rrsagent, make logs world
15:46:46 [JF]
JF has joined #wcag3-protocols
15:46:54 [JF]
agenda?
16:00:27 [bruce_bailey]
bruce_bailey has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:00:43 [Rachael]
agenda+ breakout groups
16:01:15 [bruce_bailey]
scribe:bruce_bailey
16:01:17 [bruce_bailey]
present+
16:01:56 [bruce_bailey]
Rachal: As before, we plan for breakout
16:02:02 [bruce_bailey]
... but attendance is light
16:02:08 [Rachael]
present+
16:02:17 [bruce_bailey]
JF: We seem to be talking at cross purposes...
16:02:30 [bruce_bailey]
...very different meanings for "protocols"
16:02:56 [bruce_bailey]
... evaluation protocols versus production protocols or production protocols
16:03:22 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: We do have different visions, so we want to come back to that
16:03:51 [bruce_bailey]
JF: both teams trying to solve different problems -- but using "protocols" to mean those two different things
16:04:21 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: we will document those difference and come back to the larger groups...
16:04:53 [bruce_bailey]
... previously we had different ideas, but did not split, so it was hard to resolve conflict of meaning
16:05:06 [bruce_bailey]
JF: prefer to figure out sooner than latter
16:05:33 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: first group could switch to "procedures" nomenclature
16:06:01 [SuzanneTaylor]
SuzanneTaylor has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:06:20 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: We have broken up into two group to document what we mean by protocols.
16:06:33 [Rachael]
Goal: What is a protocol (define it), Example or two, What would be documented or captured to prove a protocol, suggested alternate for "protocol"
16:07:02 [bruce_bailey]
q+
16:07:28 [Rachael]
Two approaches: Points for protocols and Procedures
16:07:35 [bruce_bailey]
bruce asks if we have quorum
16:07:45 [Rachael]
1) Points for protocols vs 2) Procedures
16:07:58 [bruce_bailey]
q+
16:07:59 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:08:00 [SuzanneTaylor]
1
16:08:01 [mbgower]
present+
16:08:03 [Rachael]
ack bruce_bailey
16:08:06 [SuzanneTaylor]
present+
16:08:52 [bruce_bailey]
bruce feels that points for protocols was making pretty good progress as compared to proceedures sub group
16:09:28 [bruce_bailey]
JF: Points for protocols is giving points / scoring for promise
16:09:31 [mbgower]
q+
16:09:37 [Rachael]
ack mbgower
16:09:46 [MichaelC]
present+
16:09:52 [bruce_bailey]
Racheal: So might points for protocols only be that promisary statement?
16:10:24 [bruce_bailey]
Mike Gower: Is that it? Don't you have to have some evaluation against meeting that promise?
16:10:42 [bruce_bailey]
JF: Well, are we going to split up, or all talk about procedures?
16:11:08 [mbgower]
q+
16:11:22 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: If points-for-protocols groups feels like they have answered my questions, lets take a look.
16:11:32 [bruce_bailey]
JF: Yes we have working definition with examples.
16:11:46 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:12:01 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: I heard statement that you have documented comittment, can that be done?
16:12:14 [Rachael]
q?
16:12:16 [jeanne]
Points for Protocols -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit
16:12:20 [bruce_bailey]
JF: I cannot, but group might be able to get at a consensus
16:12:47 [bruce_bailey]
... Plain Language is an example, cite legal obligation and commitment...
16:13:27 [bruce_bailey]
... Plain Language is contextual, so what is plain language for scientist is different than students
16:13:47 [bruce_bailey]
... plain language gives 8 factors for evaluation
16:13:52 [Rachael]
ack mbgower
16:14:09 [jeanne]
q+ to review the Points for Protocols document
16:14:35 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: I feel like current doc is not providing all we looking for with a sub group concensus statement
16:15:09 [bruce_bailey]
Mike Gower: You said you didn't have the right questions? What are the right questions?
16:15:18 [jeanne]
q+ Sheri
16:15:40 [bruce_bailey]
JF: The idea of this sort of protocol is getting the expectation in front of the content creators.
16:15:43 [bruce_bailey]
q+
16:16:04 [JF]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit
16:16:09 [bruce_bailey]
Racheal leaning toward split up.
16:16:10 [mbgower]
JF, I heard: how can mechanisms be used to prove success? How do you see a statement being used in this?
16:16:37 [Rachael]
ack jeanne
16:16:37 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to review the Points for Protocols document
16:16:42 [bruce_bailey]
Jeanne I was looking at point-for-protocols group, and I don't feel like what JF has been saying is really in this group.
16:16:48 [mbgower]
s/How do you/How do we
16:16:49 [Rachael]
ack Sheri
16:17:25 [bruce_bailey]
Sheri: I heard JF talk about proof points and I would like points for protocols to have some alignment with that
16:17:54 [bruce_bailey]
Sheri: Is moving working in progress, hope to have github version very soon
16:18:05 [Rachael]
ack bruce_bailey
16:18:13 [Rachael]
present+ Sheri
16:18:51 [mbgower]
q+
16:18:58 [bruce_bailey]
Sheri talked about Maturity Model and capturing that and reflected in working doc
16:19:13 [Rachael]
Maturity model link (access coming soon) 1Y5EO6zkOMrbyePw5-Crq8ojmhn9OCTRQ6TlgB0cE6YE/edit?pli=1#
16:19:20 [Rachael]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y5EO6zkOMrbyePw5-Crq8ojmhn9OCTRQ6TlgB0cE6YE/edit?pli=1#
16:19:22 [bruce_bailey]
MG: Please add the question you think you should be asked to your doc.
16:19:41 [bruce_bailey]
MG: Dont necessarily even need to answer.
16:19:52 [bruce_bailey]
Group Splits Up
16:20:07 [bruce_bailey]
exit to breakout rooms
16:53:48 [bruce_bailey]
Joining back up.
16:53:50 [bruce_bailey]
q+
16:54:19 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: we will just report back in
16:54:25 [Rachael]
ack mbgower
16:54:38 [Rachael]
ack bruce_bailey
16:55:13 [SuzanneTaylor]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit#
16:55:16 [Rachael]
Bruce: We made some progress.
16:55:25 [bruce_bailey]
Bruce: We makde some progress with four item list towards bottom
16:55:41 [SuzanneTaylor]
this is probably a better link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit?usp=sharing
16:55:44 [Rachael]
...4 item list at the bottom of the document.
16:55:45 [bruce_bailey]
... new notes at the bottom
16:56:29 [bruce_bailey]
sub group feels more aligne with points for protocol than we did at top of call
16:56:45 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael reporting back from points:
16:56:48 [Rachael]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit#heading=h.j4ltx2ts9h2x
16:56:57 [bruce_bailey]
documented a couple examples, worked on definition
16:57:42 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael reads from google doc
16:58:02 [jeanne]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/
16:58:12 [bruce_bailey]
JF: we provided some example, question as to where does protocol come from ?
16:58:19 [Rachael]
q?
16:58:39 [bruce_bailey]
... we think WG should validate protocols as being sufficient or not
16:59:09 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: I agree that points-to-protocol seems close to complete enough
16:59:23 [bruce_bailey]
... not sure we need to meet next week
16:59:48 [bruce_bailey]
MC: agree that we need a little more time and are making good progresss
17:00:09 [bruce_bailey]
Rachael: I will propose something to list for next meeting
17:00:34 [Rachael]
zakim, generate minutes
17:00:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'generate minutes', Rachael
17:00:41 [Rachael]
zakim, make minutes
17:00:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'make minutes', Rachael
17:00:46 [Rachael]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/06-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Rachael
17:00:57 [Rachael]
rrsagent, make logs world
17:01:20 [Rachael]
zakim, end meeting
17:01:20 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been bruce_bailey, Rachael, mbgower, SuzanneTaylor, MichaelC, Sheri
17:01:22 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:01:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/06-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
17:01:25 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, Rachael; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
17:01:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wcag3-protocols
17:18:49 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
17:49:40 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
18:21:22 [SuzanneTaylor]
SuzanneTaylor has joined #wcag3-protocols
18:42:19 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
18:59:17 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
19:31:05 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
19:50:11 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
21:03:43 [SuzanneTaylor]
SuzanneTaylor has joined #wcag3-protocols
22:12:25 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
22:24:17 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
22:46:30 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
23:17:21 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
23:33:17 [mbgower]
mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols