Meeting minutes
<Rachael> agenda: Delegating authority proposal https://
Delegating authority proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QA74Mk1N_2pJvFybTZvsrDR3MgrkkK3ubQsO4X_i77s/edit#heading=h.66sbxyoq1o44
Rachael: We've been working to improve culture. It's a complicated problem. We've made improvements and feel we're on the right track, but have more to do
… We're trying to improve the relationship between task forces and AG more efficient & effective
… Right now it's not as effective as we'd like. Based on that, we're proposing to delegate publication responsibility.
… AG now acts as a gateway, which is part of the tention. We're proposing to shift that authority to the task force, and put a required review process in place.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to explain the review component
Michael: In WAI CC we've been trying to address review effectiveness.
… We're working on a proposal that builds review in a document's lifecycle
The proposed WAI process is at https://
Michael: It's an extended review things. The flipside is, while it leads to more review opportunities, review is in the context of comments.
… Review can include blockers, described in WAI CC wiki. This is under discussion.
… We want to not publish if a blocker is identified. Anything that's not a blocker is up to the group to process.
… We'd have much more structure in place for reviews, but much less hands-on
<jeanne> +1000
Lisa: I think it's very good. We need to work with that on other things, like the review process.
… Make sure it's accessible, not overwhelming. Put a review time on the most relevant calls, not just email
… Quite radicle, but I think it's necessary.
<Kim_patch> +1001
<MichaelC> me +1
Wilco: I read this proposal as also applying to AG documents which would be reviewed by taskforces.
… seems like this would be useful the other direction too.
Kim: I think this is a good direction. I think its important the process be transparent and accessible.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say I assumed it was universal process
Michael: I share Wilco's interpretation that the process applies to main WG deliverables as well
… No reason not to. It's good to have non-blocking review on all documents
<lisa> sorry
Rachael: I support that, and making sure we do it in the way task forces need is important.
https://
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say TF work statement and to say blocking issues as safety
Lisa: Task forces have to stay in scope. They can't just change web to ICT for example.
Michael: Task forces have a work statement. Blocking issues process can be used for flagging these
… We should give enough time, but not extend publication times
… We could set up a cycle of reviewing work statements if we wanted.
Lisa: Having the scope defined can be part of the process. I think there needs to be guidance to make sure it doesn't go off
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to talk work statements
<MichaelC> https://
Michael: I put together a proposal we looked at a few times that describes WAI review process
… Horizontal review is incoporated, blockers are incorporated
… Any changes to the process, now is a good time to propose
1+
Wilco: It looks like this is for TR documents. That seems like the thing to change here. We want it to apply to Notes.
Michael: We want to address that as well but the considerations are different enough that I'd like to address them in a separate category
Michael: We'll want to address informative docs as well, but would prefer in a separate category
Rachael: Next step?
Rachael: Chair hat off. I'm concerned we have the proces, but not fleshed out. What are the next steps? Do we take it and work on it?
Micahel: Working in WAI CC would take a few weeks, or we could copy & clean it up.
Wilco: If its a couple weeks, we can wait for it.
Shawn: Several people in this call are invited to WAI CC, if there's a topic, people might invite facilitators?
Lisa: My main issue is notes. It doesn't look like there's a review process happening. I think it's important there's an accessible way to tell people it's happening.
… Is the request always by e-mail? That process has to be worked out, and it has to include notes
… I think it needs focus with known weak points in W3C process / communication
… Those kinds of things could help to make this robust and inclusive.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say all TR coverec
Michael: It needs refining. Any document published to TR would be part of this process. Rec track, notes, etc.
… There are things on the WAI site. Understanding docs, techniques. Those are not covered by this.
+1 to documenting process
<lisa> +1 to kim
Kim: I think it's important to have a document where you can see where the process is.
… Some dashboard where you can see what's needed would save a lot of time.
Lisa: I wanted to ask how we give feedback. And maybe, when a group decides to work on a document, having that as a publication point as well would be helpful.
… Notes have to have a review process. And all documents have a place to suggest sources & comment on the source
<lisa> +1 again to kim
Kim: A common place with questions for reviewers would be really useful.
Rachael: How would you like to give feedback to the document?
Kim: Dashboard that looks like the process?
Lisa: I would suggest Google doc? How we do this dashboard is a key problem.
Kim: I like docs too. It connect to things.
Rachael: They're not as accessible for screen readers.
<lisa> also we need a anoucment outreach when you decide to start working on a document, so we can sugest source documentes etc.
<lisa> +1 to google docs template
Rachael: I'm happy to move this over to Google docs. We can all try to create a dashboard, prototype.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about accessiblity of google docs -- if wanted
Rachael: I'd love someone else to lead that work.
Jeanne: The acc issue with docs is that it uses different keyboard commands. A screen reader user who knows the alternate commands can use it, but if you don't you can inadvertently mangle a doc
… A screen reader user would have to know to make changes.
Rachael: Does someone have time to put that example together?
… I'll create a google doc. I'll try to incoporate comments from the meeting and send it out.
<Kim_patch> Thing Explainer by Randall Munro is a really good exercise in plain language, completed pictures of complicated things explained plainly and with some humor – translated to several languages