Silver Conformance Subgroup

29 August 2022


janina, jeanne, jenniferS, Laura_Carlson, MichaelC

Meeting minutes

<jeanne> === Conformance ===

Review feedback from AGWG meeting

jannina: glad we went first at ag meeting.
… jeanne did a great job. Very happy.
… wilco was off topic on measurability.

jen: he is on testing sub group and that may have had an impact.
… people are imperfect.
… may be suck in testing.

mc: no specific feedback from that meeting.

jeanna: How will this play at TPAC? Ideas on how to move forward.

jen: be strategic in how we convey it.
… things may become possible even if they are not possible today.
… we should always be aiming for equity in your outcomes.
… some of this is hard.
… technology takes time.

mc: pull request is a big part of how this will land in AG.
… maybe show the PR and the explain.
… we need to be actionable.
… both in guidelines and process.

janina: some things may be unlikely. May need to take them to the lab.
… Need to be practical and actionable.
… document things.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say to inlcude "avoid prioritization by functional need" - recommend prioritize by context

jeanne: would like to avoid priority by functional need.

<jenniferS> Can you provide an example of what that would look like, Jeanne?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say making unknowns known is an action - but not the first one

<jenniferS> where did I go?

<jenniferS> 1+

MC: that level of detail is too much for this PR
… focus on actionable steps
… if equity needs to be a cyclical process if we are to be taken seriously.
… start with what we got.

jen: It there an example of don't do this.

jeanne: A, AA, AAA

mc: A, AA, AAA not intentionally inequitable but it worked out that way.

Review PR for the Requirements document

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/equity-proposal/requirements/index.html#equity

mc: starts with editors notes
… (Reads PR)

<jenniferS> "relevant user groups" — may need some explanation, could attract ire

jen: "relevant user groups" — may need some explanation, could attract ire

MC: suggestion for a different word?

jen: accessibility specific?

MC: yes.

(group wordsmithing)

jen: that's good.

<jenniferS> That's good enough! The word "relevant" was the one I worried about.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I like it, Issue Severity proposal is heading toward priority by Functional Need. That's why I think we need it for TPAC.

jeanne: like what you have done.
… concerned that issue severity is heading in in conflict with equity.

mc: may want to come up with some measurements in the next 6 months.

<jeanne> +1 for a six month project, not 1 week

mc: where structural equities may exist, etc.
… will be an active work item job.

<jenniferS> No objection here with the one edit. Thank you for the work on this!

MC: what is the next step?

janina: not sure.

<janina> +1 from Jeanne (only on phone)

Laura: +1

<janina> +1

<jenniferS> +1

RESOLUTION: accept PR 654 https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654 as a proposal to the WG

mc: will sent to the chairs.
… equity is on the agenda Monday at 1PM at TPAC.

<jenniferS> Thank you Michael!

<Cyborg> can't find zoom call today...

the meeting just ended

<Cyborg> oh...any way to catch up on what i missed?

I will be sending out the minutes.

<laura> s/guidlines /guidelines /

<Cyborg> it seems to still be going?

I am fixing typos in irc

<laura> s/level of detailthat /that level of detail

Summary of resolutions

  1. accept PR 654 https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654 as a proposal to the WG
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).


Succeeded: s/measurablity/measurability/

Succeeded: s/tesitng /testing /

Succeeded: s/an that /and that /

Failed: s/guidlines /guidelines /

Succeeded: s/stratigec in how er /strategic in how we /

Succeeded: s/thnings /thnings/

Succeeded: s/funtional /functional /

Failed: s/level of detailthat /that level of detail

Succeeded: s/stepss/steps/

Succeeded: s/cyiclical /cyclical /

Succeeded: s/example/ It there an example/

Succeeded: s/inequiable /inequitable /

Succeeded: s/structual /structural /

Succeeded: s/, etcc./, etc./

Succeeded: s/will be n acive /will be an active /

Succeeded: s/thningsmay become /thnings may become /

Succeeded: s/thnings/things/

Succeeded: s/guidlines /guidelines /

Succeeded: s/level of detailthat /that level of detail /

Succeeded: s/at 1PM /Monday at 1PM /

Succeeded: s/not feedback/no specific feedback/

Succeeded: s/hoe to/how to/

Maybe present: jannina, jeanna, jen, Laura, mc