<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

New starters or announcements

<AWK> +AWK

<Chuck> Welcome Peter Bossley!

<Chuck> Welcome (back) Benjamin!

<ShawnT> For the new folks here is the Zakim information: https://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html

Chartering discussion https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11xV-0tUQGyYXdvfqdfBopTyNUpOs3e7sAY7eJC2mvCk/edit#

AC: Survey filled in very well, we have summarized comments
... see document
... difficult to proceed current plan, so we need changes
... faster progress needed
... two main options, see document...
... chairs think end of new SC for WCAG 2.x
... we always need backwards compatibility, so not all problems can be fixed

<Jem> regret+

AC: normative changes can't be done, we can do non-normative fixes / maintenance
... we can deliver cleaned up backwards compatible version OR cleaned up NOT backwards compatible version (no new requirements)
... might even go beyond charter period

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think you're missing one option

AC: Survey gave mixed results on approach

MG: 1 option is missing, a "WCAG transitional" approach
... a non-additive WCAG 3 like approach
... may serve as a proof of direction

<Detlev> +1 to Michael

<Chuck> I need to digest that.

AC: seems like the 'maintenance option'

<Rachael> I agree that it would fall into WCAG 3 for consideration regardless of whether we take a single group or two group option

<Jaunita_George> +1

LW: cleaned up WCAG 2 seems good initiative / exercise

AC: keep it backwards compatible Leonie?

LW: as a person with a disability, I think not, but it's not a strong opinion

GV: Full brainpower is needed for WCAG 3 version

<JF> Gregg's point on impact to regulatory concerns cannot be lost

AWK: we need to be cautious to not have too many versions of WCAG
... WCAG2

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to what AWK is saying

AWK: like Greggs idea of offering possibility to choose, as an example: two version for contrast checking

<laura> +1 to awk

JS: we need to be aware we have two different 'groups' of thinking about how WCAG 3 might be constructed
... WCAG 3 is a new possibility to rethink the approach, and might be different from WCAG2 thinking

<JF> +1 to non-backward-compat for v.3

AC: WCAG 3 will / must not be backwards compatible

<alastairc> q/

WF: worry about timeline, both approaches seems to have same time, while one is more work than the other

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to agree that 3 main options are correct and agree that option 3 requires separation

<laura> +1 to focus on 3

WF: prefer focus on WCAG3

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I need to understand what is meant my amicable divorce and to say I need to understand what is meant by amicable divorce

<laura> +1 to focus on WCAG 3

BB: seems like two groups is all about the work to be done, not if splitting is the question

MG: seems like lots of people will still be part of both groups, will not solve anything

LW: the 2 step model is an issue which needs to be solved, work done in a group finds it's way to the bigger group and needs to be redone, that is the problem

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

Jake: Response to Leonie about work being redone. Previously I believe that was the idea. The TF would propose an approach, which they then take to the working group.

<JF> +1 to Jake

<laura> +1 to Jake

Jake: It might be interesting to look at it again, but if you don't do that you have a small group making decisions without the larger group being aware.

<scribe> scribe: JakeAbma

<bruce_bailey> @alastairc -- i thought i heard you say earlier that not-necessary-backwards compatible is different question

<Detlev> Are we talking about 2.X only right now?

<Chuck> 2, ok with 1

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that it isn't a two step model, it is more like a 3 or 4 step model. Think that discussing splitting groups before what we are committed to doing clearly is

AC: it will be better to have a separate group if we do a cleaned up version as it will be much more work

<alastairc> Poll for WCAG 2 work: 1) Maintenance only 2) Cleaned up backwards compatible 3) Cleaned up, not backwards compatible

<Ben_Tillyer> 1

AWK: we have more of a 3 or 4 step process, not 2
... if we don't have that process / review it will be part of bigger release to the public

<Detlev> 1 (but transfer WCAG 2 into 3 anfd maintain / clean up there)

AWK: so we need an approach like this

<laura> +1 to awk on needing rigor in WG review

<Wilco> +1 AWK

AWK: we need clear goals, to have clear structure

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i am not clear on need or scope of (2) -- i think i understand (3)

AC: question is: what level of effort do we want for a cleanup

<AWK> +1 to thanks to Francis and others working on github issues

<mbgower> 1

<alastairc> Poll for WCAG 2 work: 1) Maintenance only 2) Cleaned up backwards compatible 3) Cleaned up, not backwards compatible

<mbgower> 1

1

<AWK> 1

<garrison> 1

<Makoto> 1

<ShawnT> 1

<jeanne> 3

<janina> +0

<iankersey> 3

<JF> 1 OR 2 WITH A PREFERENCE FOR 2

<GreggVan> 1

<bruce_bailey> 3 but okay with 1 or 2

<Francis_Storr> 1

<sarahhorton> 2

<tink> Option 3 ideally, can live with option 2

<alastairc> 2, 1 ok

<laura> 1) Maintenance only

<Wilco> 1

<maryjom> 1

<GN015> 1 or 2

<JF> 2.25?

<shadi> 3

<JF> 2.2.5 rather?

<Azlan> 1

GV: a 2.2 and a 2.2 cleaned up version might raise questions by people

<Chuck> My count is 12 for option 1, 4 for option 2, and 3 for option 4

<MelanieP> 1 or 2 - whichever includes cleaning up open github issues

<bruce_bailey> +1 to what GV is saying, i think i like (1) better than (2)

<Chuck> update: My count is 12 for option 1, 4 for option 2, and 4 for option 4

<GreggVan> 1 or 2 but 2 would have to happen to 2.2 we can't put out a 2.3 that is just 2.2 fixed.

<MelanieP> 2

JF: if we want, we can create a 2.2.1 or 2.2.5, there's enough room in numbers
... do we have reasonable expectation it is needed?

<MelanieP> I would work to clear github backlog

AC: we can create a Task Force for the Github issues, mostly Understanding and Techniques

<alastairc> Poll: Who would be interested in working on WCAG 2.x issues? If we had a task force.

<alastairc> I would work would the backlog

<mbgower> by that you mean 1, right?

<iankersey> Yes I would work on backlog and also 2 and/or 3

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to answer JF

<Rachael> According to the prior survey: Paul B, Alastair, Wilco, Melanie signed up for focusing on WCAG 2

GV: we can update techniques whenever we want, even over multiple charters

<mbgower> I'm concerned you are lumping 1 and 2 together. They seem to me to be quite different (and given votes, others seem to agree)

<bruce_bailey> +1 to what GV is saying about certain regulators being content to sit on 2.0 while AG chartered for new 2.x version

GV: if we really says: "2.2 is the last version" that might trigger regulators to pay more attention to it compared to another 2.3, 2.4 version etc..

<mbgower> That has to happen regardless.

JS: getting to CR is still lots of work

<GreggVan> +1 to Janina

SAZ: resources is a challenge for option 3 (also WCAG 3)
... concerned about charter and the work to do, the risk is high
... for the community we need a better version for WCAG 2.x

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about TF clarifying scope for wcag.final ?

JF: I hear concern is resources, propose a 90 days pause for WCAG 3

<JF> +1 Gregg, this was what I was thinking about

<janina> I don't see how options 1 or 2 rule out splitting. That logic escapes me.

<alastairc> janina - it doesn't rule it out, but it doesn't require it

<mbgower> count is 12 for option1 exclusively, 4 of 1 or 2, 1 for 2 exclusively, 3 for option 3 (of which 2 were "or"))

<janina> OK, thanks.

<Chuck> scribe change!

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

<JakeAbma> GV: the 90 days would be good if we can focus on 3 completely afterwards

Alastair: There are a lot of things in the backlog to do in 90 days
... Even just working out which do and don't impact normative

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say there was more "1 or 2" and very little "3 or x"

<bruce_bailey> For @AWK (et al.) updating current 508 incorporation by reference (IBR) from 2.0 to 2.2 could -- theoretically -- be a direct final rule

Chuck: There is some analysis going on. There was more support for 1 or 2, then 3 or anything else.
... If our only path to two groups that impacts my decision.

Alastair: We also have the decision policy.

Chuck: There is more weight for option 1 or 2.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to outline wcag.final

Alastair: I don't want to get into what we call it.
... What Bruce had mentioned, a 2.9, going back and working through normative text that we want to update.

<MelanieP> Let's not forget the poll indicated 20 to split, 14 not to split. That doesn't seem to be represented in the straw poll.

Alastair: Color contrast, focus appearance, trying to keep requirements the same but with backward incompatibility.

<alastairc> we're down to under 500 now I think

MJM: It's hard to say what would effect the normative text and what is understanding / interpretation.
... I wonder if some of the task forces can help triage. Split up work.
... Some of the cognitive, or media, you can have a group focus on those parts.
... Let's focus on what might effect normative text. It's hard to make the decision without more information.

Mike: Assuming this is maintenance, that's relatively rapid. We have 500 issues backlog. The majority is 2.0, they've been open a long time.

<AWK> +1 to Mike Gower interpretation of maintenance. Agree that most issues in the backlog are non-critical.

Mike: The clear majority is for maintenance.
... They can get tagged as future consideration or something and move on.
... Option 2 looks like a real effort and looks into building a 2.3

Alastair: Agreed on option 1. If we took that choice, we'd close a lot of things as "Wont fix"
... Even option 2 is primarily understanding document and technique updates.

<mbgower> It affects the whole discussion on splitting into 2 groups, which is why I'm pushing this

Alastair: I think there's need and support for doing updates.

<shadi> +1 to community needs WCAG 2 support

Alastair: Unless we go for lots of normative updates, I don't think that requires a group split. But there are levels of effort we can put in if it's a task force or subgroup.

Francis: Along with the issues, between the understanding and techniques document we have a huge amount of broken links.
... Some have been fixed in PRs. There is a lot of cleanup to be done for understanding and technique documents.

<mbgower> Rachael: I don't now. i do think it puts 3 at risk

Alastair: We're going to move onto decision process.
... A key problem is the slow process of introducing exploratory content.
... We'd move through new content more quickly and return to issues more quickly.
... we'd still aim for consensus. As a new group we could adopt the default decision process of the W3C

<Ben_Tillyer> Wouldn't the slowness reduce if/when the main focus of the 1 group became WCAG 3 work?

Alastair: The W3C process is still consensus based, but more centred around the later stages.
... To some degree, we wouldn't have a split. But it has been noticed that even though we tried to get exploratory content in, it took 40 minutes and we couldn't even agree on the editors note.
... We've been applying the caution of WCAG 2 to what should be exploratory and new.
... That's our setup of what we can do to speed up the decision process.

<alastairc> Poll: 1) Adopt default W3C process, or 2) Adapt current decision policy

<tink> +1 to Janina's interpretation of the W3 Process.

Janina: Unanimity may not be part of the problem.

AWK: People may think the group process requires unanimity. I do not believe so. We strive for that, all W3C groups hopefully do.

<JF> +1 to Janina and AWK

<janina> agree with striving for unanimity, but it should not gate progress

AWK: I think the biggest challenge is not the decision process, but the implementation of it.
... If we're talking about getting something into a spec for review, I think we can have different levels that get applied.

<Ben_Tillyer> Quote from W3C Doc: "Where unanimity is not possible, a group should strive to make consensus decisions where there is significant support and few abstentions"

AWK: As a working group we should encourage the chairs to apply that policy.
... If it goes into a spec clearly marked as not mature, I think it's fine for it not to have unanimity.
... It's very different from if it goes into a candidate release policy

+1

<janina> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/

<alastairc> Wilco: I might have missed this, what's the default process?

<alastairc> ... need to see that to vote on it.

Alastair: I think our process is similar, but has more in it.

<Rachael> This is the section of that document: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#decisions

Gregg: Back in WCAG 1 and 2, I was told we didn't need to spend so much time on consensus. Chairs can move things forward. I found this created more trouble. We always went for full consensus.
... I would suggest we use the term full consensus and broad consensus.

<sarahhorton> Is this the correct link to the AG WG Decision Policy: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#decisions

Gregg: It took a lot of work, but when it moved forward we had both consumers and industry all push for the final version. That really helped regulators.

<JF> Managing dissent: https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#managing-dissent

Gregg: Maybe a solution could be staged rigor. At the experimental stage we let things through with comments. We add comments, people with concerns can add to them.
... As things move up they have to get more rigorous. At the top it has full consensus.

<sarahhorton> My question is whether this is the current decision policy governing the AGWG? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

<laura> +1 to Gregg

Gregg: It's what you want to push for. It makes all the difference in the world. You'll need consensus to change the order of things.

<Chuck> awe thanks

Gregg: If the chairs on experimental say it's been documented well enough, to get it in for comment.
... We keep looking at technical specs. They go in all the time with lots of objections. Ours is meant to be regulatory, looking at what works for technical specs and applying it to regulatory is just silly. It needs more rigour.
... It's not voluntary.

<JF> a HUGE +1 to Gregg

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say "aim for unanimity", require consensus

<GN015> +1 to Greg

<laura> +1 to Gregg

Alastair: Requiring consensus at the working draft stage. We've got exploratory through mature. Those earlier levels we're looking for broad consensus, but not getting stuck.

<Rachael> Staged rigour = https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process

Alastair: What we had looked at was potentially adding to our decision policy, build in the stage.
... We add something about content that isn't ready for wide review. Maybe along the lines of striving for broad consensus, outstanding questions are captured as notes.
... Something along those lines is our other option.

Jeanne: In January of 2020, we filed the first CFC to publish FPWD. We didn't actually publish until January of 2021.
... There were some changes, but not a lot. In a year of work we had very little change.
... We published again in June 2021, then in December again.
... In two years we added 1 guideline and clarified a few minor points on conformance.
... In April we brought a new conformance model to this group, at that point AGWG voted we should focus on content.
... I say, based on the actual result of this decision policy, the policy is flawed when it comes to innovative work.
... We can not continue to use this policy and hope to have WCAG 3 finished in my working lifetime.
... A more modern flexible decision policy is critical for that.
... I disagree that technical specifications are okay to go ahead with objections. They don't.
... I don't think the argument is applicable.

<janina> +1 to Jeanne

<sarahhorton> +1 to Jeanne

Jake: In reply to Gregg. It's only a regulatory spec if it'll be adopted. If that's the goal, a proven model must be developed first. Otherwise how will we know it can be regulatory at all. If it's too subjective it might just be rejected.

<JF> +1 to Jake

<GreggVan> apologies -- I have to leave

<laura> +1 to Jake

Jake: Otherwise companies will develop alternatives, or Europe will develop another EN.
... We need to tackle the regulatory questions first.

<Zakim> Question, you wanted to comment on Jeanne's example

Ben: With Jeanne's example, if our group adopted the process, would the Silver work have been held up the same amount?

JF: I tend to be with Gregg and Jake. We need to be honest, is our intention that WCAG 3 be taken up by regulators? If it's not acceptable by regulators it will not be adopted.
... Jeanne talked about a more modern process. I support a more modern process, but the counter-argument is we have several examples of a small group of people wanting to get things in.

<janina> Does anyone else remember our month debating a new "Sandbox" draft level?

JF: The feeling then is that once its in it'll never leave.
... We all want a more flexible decision process, but we don't want just everyone to be able to throw something in.

<AWK> "The Working Group follows the W3C Process Document regarding decisions. This document provides additional detail about the consensus decision-making process."

<Rachael> Janina, the process at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process includes the sandbox level

<AWK> AGWG's decision policy: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy

Tink: Strongly agree with Jeanne. We do need lots of scrutiny of what we produce, but the way we're making decisions feels like group A does work, and group B sits in judgement. That's not how to do things.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer ben

Alastair: If we were just to apply the W3C process it'd be a lot quicker. We're over-scrutinizing at an early stage.

<Chuck> +1 to Alastair's observations on too much scrutiny too early

<Rachael> +1 to Alastair as well

Alastair: We spend way too long on scrutinising exploratory content.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer ben

Jeanne: If we publish quarterly, that was the original intent, we would get feedback from the public, instead of having it limited to people in this group.
... We could make much more progress if we had a lighter-weight decision policy.

<JF> We've got a mountain of public feedback from FPWD that sits unaddressed

<kirkwood> +1 to Jeanne

AWK: Part of the challenge is that this work started out in two separate groups of people. Main WG, and the Silver TF.
... Everyone in the main group cares and feels responsibility for the work. That's where we ran into problems with FPWD for WCAG 3.

<Ben_Tillyer> Thanks for both of your responses Jeanne + alastairc. I feel that a culture change would achieve this just as much as a change in decision making process.

AWK: There were concerns about having a conformance model, about various types. There is nothing that was stopping Silver TF from getting public feedback. The spec was public.
... We didn't have the controls in place to articulate which things where at which levels of maturity.

<JF> +1 AWK - you are better articulating my point

AWK: I'm all in favour of a more nimble process, but when we're working in separate process it makes this harder. That's why I think we need one group focused on one spec.

<Jennie> +1 tp AWL

<Jennie> +1 to AWK's concerns

AWK: If we think we'll have a different decision policy, rely more on the public for feedback, we'll set ourselves up for more pain down the road.

<laura> +1 to awk

<mbgower> +1

<alastairc> draft resolution: Continue with one group, adjust decision policy (TBC later) to enable more nimble exploratory work

<jeanne> Please remember that 20 people voted in favor of two groups compared to 14 for one group

Alastair: I think what could work is continue as one group, and adjust the policy to enable more exploratory work.

<tink> -1 to one WG

<laura> +1 to one WG

<jeanne> -1

<alastairc> Wilco: Instead of us deciding on one group, it depends on wanting to do a 2.final

Alastair: There wasn't too much support on a 2.final. The decision policy aspect primarily applies to WCAG 3 anyway.
... This would be applying to WCAG 3 work.

<JakeAbma> +1 to one WG

Ben: Do we know what this changed policy would look like.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18UL3rG_Vz_68sNSXtKvv55gwcyIgh_Iw7nnwBO8BYjE/edit

Alastair: We have a draft, the main point of it is to say that for exploratory content

<alastairc> "For content that is not yet ready to go to wide review, the Working Group strives to reach broad consensus only. Instead of objections, outstanding questions and concerns are captured as editors notes. These questions and concerns must be addressed before the content is sent for wide public review, though smaller, targeted releases may occur. The group moves forward once all questions and concerns are captured, most members agree, and the

<alastairc> chairs agree that the content is worth pursuing."

Alastair: In some ways that's bringing us more in line with the main W3C policy.

<Peter_Bossley> +1

AWK: For clarification, our current policy says the W3C follows the process document regarding decisions.
... That line is in the updated policy as well. I feel there has been some discussion today that we're not following the process.

<janina> DP asks for WD at least every 6 months

AWK: It sounds like we're trying to tweak our decision policy.

Alastair: It build on the W3C policy, and has added a lot to it. We've potentially been over-applying it.

Sarah: The decision policy conversation is worth having, and what to do with WCAG 2. I'm surprised we're not talking about some of the other issues from the survey.
... The one I think is super important is the cultural and operating processes, that are different with the two groups.
... That has gotten in the way of progress for WCAG 3.
... We've talked about innovation, disruption. The AGWG group is looking at sustaining WCAG. That's its focus.
... Pursuing a process to sustain WCAG is appropriate. WCAG 3 from the start was intended to be an innovation, and potentially disruptive.
... There's an inertia that WCAG 3 works continues to come up against. That's difficult.
... What we're lacking is an autonomous group that's focused on creating disruption.
... Ultimately the sustaining technology, having decision making authority over a task force that's engage in a disruptive effort.

<jeanne> +1 Sarah

<janina> +1K to Sarah!

<kirkwood> +1 to Sarah

Alatair: Chair hat off. We've been discussing that. If we don't do a substantial amount of WCAG 2 work, the focus becomes WCAG 3, therefore the whole group gets behind it.
... The other aspect, the culture comes from how we make decisions. If we shift from a point of view, almost defaulting to things going in assuming the chairs (...) If it got passed the chairs, it should go in.

Mike: How I'm picturing this, the Silver TF effectively stops to exist as the entire group is focused on WCAG 3.
... Whether you typify it as disruptive, WCAG 3's base line is to at least meet the WCAG 2 yard stick. That is an uncomfortable reality we have to manage.

Alastair: Things would go in, but with notes about what needs to be improved.
... If we're not putting huge effort into WCAG 2. We'd have maintenance, maybe a small task force. That doesn't need two groups.
... It's whether we'd improve the situation by splitting groups.
... At that stage it's more like re-inventing the group.
... It's working on our culture, rather than separating the group

Rachael: From my view, the worst thing is not to change enough that we can do the work at all.
... Continuing a culture that's focused around an existing standard, that's where this break starts to make sense.

Chuck: Agree with Rachael. Regarding this not being the decision policy, empowering the chairs is something to consider as well.

<janina> +1 to two groups

<jeanne> +1 for 2 groups

<Makoto> +1 to one main WG for WCAG 3 AND another WG (or TF) for WCAG 2 maintenance.

<JakeAbma> +1 to one WG

<tink> +1 to two groups

<MelanieP> +1 to two groups

-1

<laura> +1 to one WG

<mbgower> how are we supposed to vote ?

<sarahhorton> +1 for two groups

<Azlan> + 1 for 2 groups

<Detlev> -1 for two groups

<GN015> +1 to one group

<Ben_Tillyer> -1 for two groups

<ShawnT> +1 two groups

<bruce_bailey> i don't think we need two groups if we limit the work we give ourselves

<sarahhorton> both

Alastair: Is that level for WCAG 2, or a reset of the policy / culture?

<ToddL> +1 to two groups

<mbgower> -1 for two groups

<maryjom> -1 to 2 groups.

Alistair: The vibe is wrong for WCAG 3 development in this kind of group. What you want is more of a vibe from the community group. Willingness to throw things out.
... When I was in ACT Wilco managed this well. Having a high degree of knowing what you want.

<ToddL> correction, mine should be -1 to two groups.

<bruce_bailey> i thought all chairs voted for two groups ?

Alistair: Unfortunately that's a bit lacking. We meander all over the place because in my mind we don't have the end point in mind.
... We're lacking a little in our forward thinking, and we're using a very structured approach to deal with highly innovative material.

+1 Alistair!

<Detlev> We need a clearer survey with proper options to get coherent answers

<Detlev> sorry straw poll

<jeanne> +1

<Chuck> +1 for two groups

Janina: Why I voted for two groups. It's my sense that unless you abandon work on 2, there is too much left to do to also have this other mindset to accept the culture necessary to move 3.0 forward.

<Chuck> 4 for one group, 8 for two groups

<AWK> If we are actually doing a straw poll it needs to be clear what +1 and -1 mean

Janina: What I've seen is we got fairly solid consensus through sub-groups and the Silver TF. But when we get to AG we're shot down based on 2.x thinking.

<alastairc> Poll: +1 for two groups, -1 for one group

<AWK> Chuck, Alastair never actually asked if people want 1 group, only for people who still want two groups to chime in

Janina: There is a lot of value in 2, making it robust.

<AWK> -1

<Detlev> -1

Tink: Agree with Janina, there is a responsibility to get both things done.

<MelanieP> Will ISO accept a technical spec with 500+ isssues open on it?

<Chuck> updated tally: 6 for one group, 8 for two groups

<Ben_Tillyer> -1

Tink: Alistair made an excellent point. The WCAG 3 is in many respects a revolution. If we're going to create guidelines for modern web we need a attitude compatible with that.

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

Tink: If we want to stay relevant there's a vital need to separate those concerns.

<mbgower> -1

<jeanne> +1 Leonie

<ShawnT> +1 to save the chairs!

<Chuck> I am no longer tallying, as I don't know what +1's and -1's are for comments vs polling

Tink: We also need to save our chairs, this is not an easy group to manage. Divide and conquer may be necessary.

<janina> +1 to Chairs!

<Chuck> 7 for one group, 8 for 2 groups, there is no consensus

<Chuck> I must go

Alastair: We're still quite split on this question. Thank you everyone for your input.

<Rachael> Thank you all very much for the thoughtful conversation

<jeanne> +1 to chairs!

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that the "experts" who make proposals don't want to "throw things out" - they fought to get it in, and that's it

<mbgower> Thanks chairs. Your efforts and everyone else's appreciated!

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/yes//
Succeeded: s/prove/proof/
Succeeded: s/chartered for new version/chartered for new 2.x version/
Succeeded: s/groups/group/
Default Present: AlastairC, Chuck, ShawnT, Peter_Bossley, JakeAbma, Ben_Tillyer, jeanne, janina, bruce_bailey, Rachael, Wilco, Jennie, Daniel, Lauriat, Léonie, (tink), Laura_Carlson, AWK, Detlev, MelanieP, sarahhorton, shadi, SuzanneTaylor, Makoto, iankersey, Caryn, Jaunita_George, JF, MichaelC, garrison, GreggVan, maryjom, Jen_G, Francis_Storr, Nicaise, kirkwood, StefanS, ToddL, Raf, GN
Present: AlastairC, Ben_Tillyer, Caryn, Chuck, Daniel, Detlev, Francis_Storr, GreggVan, JF, JakeAbma, Jaunita_George, Jen_G, Jennie, Laura_Carlson, Lauriat, Léonie (tink), Makoto, MelanieP, MichaelC, Nicaise, Rachael, ShawnT, StefanS, SuzanneTaylor, ToddL, Wilco, bruce_bailey, garrison, iankersey, janina, jeanne, kirkwood, maryjom, sarahhorton, shadi, Raf, GN015
Found Scribe: JakeAbma
Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Found Scribe: JakeAbma
Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Scribes: JakeAbma, Wilco
ScribeNicks: JakeAbma, Wilco

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)