11:54:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
11:54:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-irc
11:57:43 <JF> JF has joined #wcag3-protocols
11:57:56 <JF> agenda?
11:58:15 <JF> zakim, start this meeting
11:58:15 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
11:58:16 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JF
11:58:59 <JF> meeting: WCAG 3 Protocols Meeting
11:59:42 <jaunita_george> zakim, start meeting
11:59:42 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
11:59:43 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jaunita_george
12:00:14 <jaunita_george> agenda+ Evaluating Procedures Proposal
12:00:35 <jaunita_george> agenda+ Points for Protocol Proposal
12:01:31 <jaunita_george> Meeting: Protocols-052722
12:01:39 <jaunita_george> Chair: Jaunita George
12:01:43 <MichaelC> present+
12:01:51 <jaunita_george> rrsagent, make logs world
12:02:11 <jaunita_george> zakim, take up item 1
12:02:11 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Evaluating Procedures Proposal -- taken up [from jaunita_george]
12:02:43 <jaunita_george> zakim, pick a victim
12:02:43 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose MichaelC
12:02:55 <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
12:03:47 <MichaelC> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit
12:05:06 <MichaelC> jg: <reads from proposal>
12:09:55 <jennifer_> jennifer_ has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:10:00 <jennifer_> present+
12:10:04 <Rachael> q+
12:10:54 <MichaelC> jf: what is goal for this review?
12:11:11 <MichaelC> jg: send the proposals to the WG
12:11:30 <MichaelC> don´t expect consensus of the subgroup, we have two areas of consensus
12:11:47 <MichaelC> jf: will we review first?
12:11:54 <MichaelC> jg: can do some cleanup before submitting
12:12:07 <jaunita_george> ack Rachael
12:12:14 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:12:28 <MichaelC> rbm: I see next step as solicit review from the parent groups of both proposals
12:12:29 <jeanne> present+
12:12:42 <MichaelC> we can refine them if it´s productive
12:12:42 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
12:12:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
12:12:46 <Rachael> present+
12:13:40 <MichaelC> jf: I see lots of questions open
12:13:50 <Rachael> q+
12:13:59 <MichaelC> jg: because we have two areas of consensus, we expect that
12:14:05 <Rachael> q-
12:14:10 <MichaelC> taking to the larger group will give us more points of view
12:14:25 <MichaelC> don´t think we will be able to agree here on a single proposal
12:15:21 <MichaelC> per RBM we can start to prepare the editors´ notes of outstanding issues
12:15:26 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
12:15:26 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Points for Protocol Proposal -- taken up [from jaunita_george]
12:15:30 <MichaelC> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit
12:15:34 <jennifer_> I thought I asked a question about the two approaches, and the response was that the two approaches would work in tandem.
12:16:24 <MichaelC> jf: my understanding of conformance is that you perform ACT-style tests
12:16:42 <MichaelC> failing tests lowers the score and potentially conformance level
12:16:56 <MichaelC> losing points is demoralizing
12:17:14 <MichaelC> think protocols can be used to (re)gain some points
12:17:34 <MichaelC> define what success looks like given unknown parameters
12:18:02 <jeanne> q+ to ask that a concern be listed that protocols can be gamed to pass a minimum on a site that isn't accessible.
12:18:35 <MichaelC> promising to adopt best practices docs gives you points
12:19:11 <jeanne> ack je
12:19:11 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask that a concern be listed that protocols can be gamed to pass a minimum on a site that isn't accessible.
12:19:11 <jaunita_george> ack jeanne
12:19:13 <MichaelC> protocol gives content creator info to make well informed decision
12:19:24 <Rachael> q+ to clarify what would go forward with this proposal
12:19:45 <JF> Q+
12:21:07 <MichaelC> js: should note concern about raising score where it @@
12:21:32 <MichaelC> s/js:/jeanne:/
12:21:37 <jaunita_george> ack Rachael
12:21:37 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to clarify what would go forward with this proposal
12:21:41 <MichaelC> jennifer: @@
12:22:13 <jeanne> s/@@/ would otherwise fail a minimum bar of objective tests. It makes it more vulnerable to gaming
12:22:29 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
12:22:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
12:22:33 <MichaelC> rbm: we´d add all concerns to either proposal
12:22:49 <jaunita_george> ack JF
12:23:12 <MichaelC> topic: Discussion of proposals
12:23:49 <MichaelC> jf: my concern with evaluating procedures proposal allows self-documented protocols
12:24:09 <MichaelC> could lead to toothless protocols
12:24:37 <MichaelC> orgs do this all the time but it doesn´t necessarily improve accessibility
12:25:25 <MichaelC> jg: the evaluating procedures proposal includes requirements for self-documented protocols
12:25:39 <MichaelC> and states that they must be public so they can be inspected
12:25:50 <MichaelC> jf: who vets them?
12:26:19 <MichaelC> recognize AG can be a bottleneck, but we need rigour
12:27:00 <MichaelC> jg: protocols relate to specific outcomes and are measured in context of that
12:27:20 <jeanne> q+ to ask how Points for Protocols addresses this?
12:27:36 <MichaelC> jf: don´t see how we evaluate stuff that can´t be measured
12:28:08 <MichaelC> it´s still subjective
12:29:02 <MichaelC> jeanne: how does Points for Protocols provide the rigour? I see the same question applying to both
12:29:05 <MichaelC> ack j
12:29:05 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask how Points for Protocols addresses this?
12:29:21 <MichaelC> jf: protocols are vetted by AG
12:29:50 <MichaelC> hence subject matter experts
12:30:00 <Rachael> q+
12:31:02 <MichaelC> jeanne: that´s not clear in the proposal right now, think it needs editing
12:31:19 <MichaelC> jf: AG doesn´t have to author all protocols
12:32:28 <MichaelC> but it reviews them before they can be used to gain conformance points
12:32:43 <MichaelC> jeanne: that needs to be written up
12:32:45 <jaunita_george> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit#
12:33:04 <MichaelC> ack r
12:33:07 <jaunita_george> ack Rachael
12:33:17 <jennifer_> q+
12:33:36 <MichaelC> rbm: might be useful to compare the proposals in table form to find the similarities and differences
12:33:58 <jennifer_> +1
12:34:21 <MichaelC> ack j
12:34:36 <jeanne> New document -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gQ8k6Dkaxnl9fSY3hTbRzTGgdr-FTdlO5fmU5wPSI5E/edit
12:34:49 <MichaelC> jennifer: I think we should come together with a harmonized proposal
12:34:58 <JF> Q+
12:35:01 <Rachael> Just a note that multiple proposals at the exploratory phase is built into our process
12:35:43 <MichaelC> need to be nice to each other, hear one another, approach with best of intentions
12:35:48 <jaunita_george> ack JF
12:36:28 <MichaelC> jf: @@ haven´t decided what we´re doing with conformance
12:37:00 <MichaelC> public declaration of adopting protocol
12:37:06 <MichaelC> accomplishes @@
12:37:41 <MichaelC> the public promise means you have to follow through on it
12:37:47 <jaunita_george> q+\
12:37:54 <MichaelC> in a legal situation
12:38:04 <MichaelC> ack \
12:38:34 <MichaelC> jg: accessibility statements aren´t generally enforceable
12:39:17 <MichaelC> jf: one of the questions is, what will regulators accept
12:39:31 <jennifer_> * Jennifer needs access
12:40:36 <Rachael> Chair note: We are working our way towards conformance conversations but we are still not there yet so pre-discussing has not proven to be a productive use of time
12:40:38 <MichaelC> q+
12:40:53 <MichaelC> jg: do we want to develop a single proposal, or submit multiple?
12:41:15 <MichaelC> jf: are we even working on the same thing?
12:41:22 <jennifer_> q+
12:41:26 <MichaelC> maybe we´re working on different things that both use word protocol
12:42:15 <jaunita_george> ack MichaelC
12:42:54 <jennifer_> * Jennifer: Thanks, Jeanne. I refreshed before, but now I do have access.
12:43:01 <JF> Q+ to note that an end state does not have to be one or the other - it may be both
12:43:03 <MichaelC> for me, the question is what @@
12:43:12 <jaunita_george> ack jennifer_
12:43:33 <MichaelC> mc: I think we won´t form consensus on a single proposal, thing broader input from the WG is needed
12:43:50 <MichaelC> raising questions and feature comparisons is useful
12:44:04 <MichaelC> jennifer: think we should be able to come to agreement
12:44:37 <MichaelC> rbm: discussion of conformance keeps side-tracking us
12:45:11 <MichaelC> there are unknowns that we need to work around, until we´re able to get to them
12:45:19 <JF> +1 to Jen
12:45:28 <MichaelC> jennifer: all work should halt until conformance sorted out
12:46:07 <MichaelC> rbm: we tried addressing conformance first, but didn´t have enough base information to have non-circular conversation
12:46:20 <MichaelC> the chairs have to find a way to work through things
12:46:30 <MichaelC> having multiple options is ok
12:46:50 <MichaelC> we can compare, discuss, merge, etc.
12:47:28 <MichaelC> people may strongly favour a proposal, but we have to develop an overall consensus
12:47:51 <MichaelC> chairs are handling this with a strict schedule, which we have to use to be able to move forward
12:48:07 <MichaelC> jennifer: can we put a bracket around conformance-related aspects of proposal
12:48:36 <MichaelC> q+
12:48:47 <MichaelC> rbm: thinks the points for protocols proposal has done that
12:48:58 <MichaelC> it will be part of what we forward to group
12:49:48 <MichaelC> we need to make progress, we´re recycling discussion
12:49:59 <MichaelC> jennifer: think a group should be able to work together
12:50:12 <MichaelC> and evaluating procedures group has developed something different
12:51:06 <MichaelC> jf: we have two unique ideas, both have some value, neither are fully baked
12:51:28 <MichaelC> should ask the WG to evaluate them independent of each other
12:51:43 <MichaelC> with both using the word ¨protocol¨ that´s harder
12:52:16 <MichaelC> see conformance being addressed in the evaluating procedures proposal as well
12:52:31 <MichaelC> ack me
12:52:36 <MichaelC> ack jf
12:52:36 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that an end state does not have to be one or the other - it may be both
12:52:38 <JF> ack me
12:54:04 <MichaelC> mc: think we were ¨bracketing¨ conformance but hadn´t actually put brackets in
12:54:19 <MichaelC> think we need to have placeholder conformance info for the proposal and as fodder for later discussion
12:54:59 <MichaelC> it´s ok to rename if there is concern they are being presented as exclusive of each other
12:55:06 <MichaelC> jg: what about renaming?
12:55:18 <MichaelC> jf: ¨development protocols¨ and ¨evaluation protocols¨
12:55:59 <MichaelC> jg: development would be points for protocols, evaluation would be evaluating procedures
12:57:02 <jaunita_george> Proposed Resolution: Bring both proposals to AGWG as Development Protocols (Points for Protocol) and Evaluation Protocols (Evaluating Procedures) and work to get a table together outlining the differences/similarities ahead of the AGWG meeting we'll be discussing it.
12:57:14 <JF> +1
12:57:20 <MichaelC> +1
12:57:21 <jaunita_george> +1
12:57:25 <Rachael> 0
12:57:30 <jennifer_> 0
12:57:40 <jeanne> +1 for two propo9sals, but I don't like the new names.  I don't think they accurately describe the proopsals
12:58:02 <jennifer_> Agree with Jeanne — I don't understand them at all.
12:59:34 <Rachael> What about procedures and protocols?
12:59:55 <jaunita_george> RESOLUTION: Bring both proposals to AGWG as Points for Protocol and Evaluating Procedures and work to get a table together outlining the differences/similarities ahead of the AGWG meeting we'll be discussing it.
13:00:22 <MichaelC> jg: we´ll prepare to present these to the AG WG
13:00:39 <MichaelC> meanwhile let´s fill out the table of similarities and differences
13:01:02 <MichaelC> jg: let´s meet next week (12:00 pm Eastern) to review the table
13:01:28 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
13:01:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC
13:02:13 <jaunita_george> zakim, end meering
13:02:13 <Zakim> I don't understand 'end meering', jaunita_george
13:02:20 <jaunita_george> zakim, end meeting
13:02:20 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been MichaelC, jennifer_, jeanne, Rachael
13:02:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:02:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
13:02:25 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jaunita_george; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
13:02:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag3-protocols
13:17:14 <Plansmash> Plansmash has joined #wcag3-protocols