<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?
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
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?
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)
RESOLUTION: accept PR 654 https://
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