Meeting minutes
<Chuck_> Thanks for scribing Laura!
Announcements & unfilled roles
maryjom: announcement, will host an ad hoc session to help people become familiar with github. Project management through tickets for tracking.
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to everything you said!
<Chuck_> Poll: Who is interested in an ad hoc tutorial on github?
<ShawnT> +1
<Chuck_> +1
maryjom: create a template for success criteria. Who is interested?
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<Sam> +1
<olivia-hogan-stark> +1
+1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<dmontalvo> +1
maryjom: will take next meeting to do the training. Homework will be to learn about github.
maryjom: Still in need of editors for the note.
<Chuck_> +1 to Judy's idea, I think that would be fantastic
<ShawnT> +1 to Judy also
maryjom: are there any volunteers?
FernandaBonnin: What does this involve?
maryjom: is there a definition of editor roles?
<MichaelC> https://
Judy: editor is to integrate what people are saying. Capture ideas.
maryjom: co facilitator position is still open
Continue discussion on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-work-statement/results
<maryjom> https://
maryjom: recap, section 1 editorial items incorporated
maryjom: defer this resolution until later
Question 3. Approach section
<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept amended approach section
<Chuck_> +1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<maryjom> +1
<Sam> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<olivia-hogan-stark> +1
+1
maryjom: Resolution passed.
RESOLUTION: Accept amended approach section
Question 4. Timeline section
maryjom: We will manage the dates. We will likely not beat WCAG 2.2 to publication. We can not finalize until WCAG 2.2 is final
Judy: W3C is an international organization. So we need to be careful how we mention timelines that allow us to harmonize standards internationally?
Chuck_: It should be generic. If we specifically mention other standards, we might create dependencies (circular dependencies).
BryanTrogdon: How do we align that with the timeline? Will this align with EN 549?
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that is one of the more mindful opportunities that we wish to support, but still do not think we should be explicit.
ThorstenKatzmann: I fully support approach to mention it but not to go into details on the new EN standard. Keep an eye on what is going on but remain independent.
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to what has been said, we can control what we can control within W3C and WCAG2ICT however shouldn't be dependent on outside of control entities that would limit our goals, objectives and outcomes. Monitor, but not rely on due to outside influences out of our control.
<Judy> +1 Thorsten
Question 5. Liaisons section
<Zakim> Sam, you wanted to say Only have EU standards orgs and US AB in the Liaisons section what about ISO JCT 1?
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to discuss a short point of order tutorial on using q+
Chuck_: Use "q+ to say" to provide reminder of what you want to say
<Chuck_> I will scribe for laura when she speaks
<Zakim> laurabmiller, you wanted to say CSA B651.2
<Chuck_> laurabmiller: I would add, we do have other representation. I'm a member of a wg that could be mentioned.
Sam: Do not want to give off the impression that we are biased toward the European rules and standards
maryjom: Make that section more generic rather than list everything out
+1
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask Judy a question
<Devanshu> +1
<Sam> +1
Judy: liaison section, it is common for w3c charters (task force work statements) to make some specific listings of different organizations and other standards bodies. It is ok to list some specifically within a generic statement.
maryjom: ISO can be added because it is international. Generic statement to include other liaisons and advocacy groups worldwide
shadi: Some organizations are quite particular about listing as "liaison" unless it is formal.
<Zakim> Sam, you wanted to say i can work with our standards org to make it is ok to include and inform ISO JTC 1
maryjom: Adjustments in language are still needed
Chuck_: This language and list might revolve, we can approve the work statement and accept the PR. Add an editor's note to explain to AGWG that we will use this process to update.
<ChrisLoiselle> Perhaps type of version vs. specific groups. Talk to national , international , government and non government or public vs. private sector
<Judy> [jb: (expanding my comment a bit...) for instance, this Task Force cannot represent itself directly to JTC-1, as this Task Force is not officially chartered; it's a TF several levels down within W3C. (Important that WCAG2ICT TF participants understand this, so no over-presentation of participation. Please raise questions if this doesn't feel clear -- thanks!)]
ChrisLoiselle: Adding comment for genericizing
Chuck_: recommendation - editor's note for AGWG that this section will be updated to accommodate that approach
Question 6. Communication section
maryjom: No resolution until we add the editors note
Tools for drafting content
Continue discussion on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-work-statement/results
maryjom: only editorials to the communication section
Question 7. Participation section
<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept Timeline Section
<ShawnT> +1
+1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<Chuck_> +1
<maryjom> +1
<olivia-hogan-stark> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<Sam> +1
<BryanTrogdon> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept Timeline Section
<GreggVan> +1
<dmontalvo> +1
FernandaBonnin: Accept participation section
<Chuck_> draft RESOLUTION: Accept Participation Section
<maryjom> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<FernandaBonnin> +1
<ThorstenKatzmann> +1
<BryanTrogdon> =1
<BryanTrogdon> +1
<Sam> +1
<Anastasia_Lanz> +1
<olivia-hogan-stark> +1
<Devanshu> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> +1
<CaraHenderson__> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept Participation Section
Question 8. Facilitation section
Chuck_: Still seeking alternative task force leader and this section will be updated when we have that person selected.
Chuck_: Recommend that we have editors notes to add. Let's work on the editors notes and then in the next meeting review the pull request with editors notes.
maryjom: there are also a few items in section 2 that we have not settled on. Email conversation may follow (asynchronously).
<Chuck_> THANK YOU!
<maryjom> regrets Bruce_Bailey, Phil_Day