10 June 2022


bruce_bailey, Jaunita_George, jeanne, JF, MichaelC, Poornima_, Rachael, ShawnT
Jaunita George

Meeting minutes

<ShawnT> Is today the 8AM meeting?

<ShawnT> Perfect, thank you

<ShawnT> talk soon

Review/edit consensus table (30 minutes)

<Jaunita_George> Consensus Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1twjaSude_5-1VdpFKPX1Bw_hA09cIvyzeP1h8PowSxo/edit#

<ShawnT> What's the link to the Zoom?

<ShawnT> Thanks

Jaunita: working on consensus protocols

JF: notes some issues with the display in Google Docs

JF: tip is to close editing view

<Jaunita_George> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1twjaSude_5-1VdpFKPX1Bw_hA09cIvyzeP1h8PowSxo/edit#heading=h.a3wmgsst97aw

ShawnT notes some difficulty with Zoom link from Wiki page which MC will update

<ShawnT> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Protocols

<ShawnT> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c845aec-dab5-49c4-8294-86cc0d1b5aac/20220107T090000

<Jaunita_George> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1twjaSude_5-1VdpFKPX1Bw_hA09cIvyzeP1h8PowSxo/edit#heading=h.a3wmgsst97aw

Jaunita: at last meeting we noted a great deal of similarity between two sub groups...
… please edit or comment on combined document
… differences we might be able to address as different tiers of work for protocols, to allow us something to bring to AGWG

JF: I don't agree that are so close, bullet with "created by anyone" seems problematic...
… this difference is significant, because protocols need to be vetted by authority, if not AGWG itself

Jaunita: Please open document, look for where we can combine...
… also a possibility to bring competing versions of section to AGWG

Jaunita: Please take moment to open, let me know if problems reading.

Bruce ask for help with lack of horizontonal scroll bar

Bruce: using "pageless" feature

[Jeanne and Jaunita improve formatting]

Jaunita: combined proposal is at bottom of document, so that can be focus for todays discussion

Doc has four columns, Topic, Points for Protocols, Evaluating Procedures, and Commonalities/Differences

<jeanne> +1 for one proposal with differences highlighted

Going through rows by topics, tabular presentation shows overlap

MC: We will want a single document for WGAG, not two, but calling out disagreements will be fine.

JF: I am still seeing fundamental differences...
… one proposal is strict script for testing...
… needs to be in different place in life cycle. The proposals are fundamental differences.

MC: The evaluation protocol is NOT about evaluating after the fact...
… so I think we can separate where/timeline as a difference.

JF: One approach to protocols is just too loose. Use a pale blue background could be a protocol per one definition...

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to add a new row of when the protocol is applied

JF: that is different than having a description on, for example cognitive, which is required reading before starting to develop content

JF: they are complementary but not the same

Jeanne: I added row to table, so we can call out the "where/when" as its own question.

Poornima: I thing we can add an another column so as to highlight with AGWG who writes and who enforces protocol...
… we may need third party to validate protocols. I do see some contradictions between the approaches.

Jeanne: First row is who writes the protocol. Do we need more?

Poornima: I think it is that the titles of the protocols need to be determined by the AGWG.
… we need a subgroup to determine the categories of protocols

MC: I added evaluating procedure to help with requirements which will help with confidence in protocols.

JF: Can MC provide some straw man protocols?

JF: I like PlainLanguage.gov as one which seems aligned with what we are thinking.

MC: See what evaluation procedures, evidence, describe, [etc.]...
… proposal has what we are looking for, what level of rigor is needed ...
… we might add more

MC: AGWG is not going to be able to write out all the many protocols we will need for wcag3

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask JF for his other example

JF: Other example was "making content useable"

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/

JF: Proposals defines good enough but is still a fundamental difference

Rachael: Agrees that we want to capture the fundamental conflicts or differences in the report back to AGWG

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose moving forward with what we have

Jeanne: i think we got people recording their thoughts. If JF doesn't think the one-proposal report is practical, let us submit two...
… and we could have a third which highlights similarity/differences

Rachael: Reminder of process -- should try to focus on question that could go to AGWG and then which results in PR

Jeanne: Could we do presentation before survey?

<Rachael> June 21st?

<jeanne> +1 to presentation then survey

<Poornima_> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Jaunita_George> Draft resolution: Bring two proposals to AGWG with a table outlining the similarities and differences. This would be presented first to AGWG before questions are sent in a survey. Presentation would be on June 21st

<ShawnT> +1

<JF> +1

<MichaelC> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<jeanne> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> Can you present in 30 minutes? 10 minute overview, 10 minutes for each version?

RESOLUTION: Bring two proposals to AGWG with a table outlining the similarities and differences. This would be presented first to AGWG before questions are sent in a survey. Presentation would be on June 21st.

<jeanne> +1 to 30 minutes

<jeanne> +1 to single presenter

MC: Suggest single person giving presentation

<ShawnT> +1

JF: I would prefer two speakers

JF: I would like to present the proposal which I have had lead with.

<Jaunita_George> Agenda

Racheal: Okay with two people, but 30 minutes is cap.

<Jaunita_George> Introduction to the work: Jaunita

<Jaunita_George> Points for Protocol: John

<Jaunita_George> Evaluating Procedures: Jaunita

Bruce suggests JF coach Jaunita

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest JF coach Jaunita

JF: I have concerns with notes and comparisons, so I have not been conveying concern

Rachael: I support both proposals getting before AGWG

Rachael: slide approach would be better than doc, but needs more time

Jaunita 21st date is election day, so that is no good

Jaunita, I can get with John on a joint proposal.

Jaunita: We will work on summarizing table

bruce: thanks JF for being willing to work with Jaunita on joint presentation

JF: I agree I am not getting some of my concerns accross

Jeanne: i am also willing to help with slide deck

Rachael: please invite chairs if we can help with process and review

<Rachael> It can come back to this group two times before AG for discussion.

Poornima: I would like more opportunities to give feedback into doucment

Jaunita: We have a couple more meeting before the 28th date

MC: 28th date might not work for me

<Rachael> +1 to speaker notes. Thank you both for tackling this

Jaunita: I will endeavor to have good speaker notes in the PPT/Google Slides speaker notes

MC: Please check Poornima on access to meetings
… Silver Community Group might not be the same as before

Jaunita: We have a path forword.

Summary of resolutions

  1. Bring two proposals to AGWG with a table outlining the similarities and differences. This would be presented first to AGWG before questions are sent in a survey. Presentation would be on June 21st.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: Bruce, Jaunita, MC, Poornima, Racheal