17:56:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria
17:56:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/16-aria-irc
17:56:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:56:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jamesn
17:56:12 <jamesn> meeting: ARIA WG
17:56:17 <jamesn> agendabot, find agenda
17:56:17 <agendabot> jamesn, OK. This may take a minute...
17:56:18 <agendabot> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/665c08c6-871d-4f53-a758-d6259ca56ca1/20230216T130000
17:56:18 <agendabot> clear agenda
17:56:18 <agendabot> agenda+  -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3IkWTy3
17:56:18 <agendabot> agenda+  -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/40PGA4J
17:56:20 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates
17:56:23 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Explain how values are obtained https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/184
17:56:26 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Does the "Presentational Roles Conflict Resolution" always apply? https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1389
17:56:29 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Readme should document expectations of for New PR template and New Issue template (order, optionality, etc.) https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1861
17:56:32 <agendabot> agenda+  -> 1.3 blocking issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+label%3A1.3-Blocking+
17:57:00 <chlane> chlane has joined #aria
17:58:50 <arigilmore> arigilmore has joined #aria
18:01:59 <MarkMcCarthy> MarkMcCarthy has joined #aria
18:02:19 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #aria
18:02:32 <arigilmore> present+
18:02:47 <pkra> pkra has joined #aria
18:02:49 <spectranaut_> present+
18:02:51 <pkra> present+
18:03:04 <Adam_Page> present+
18:03:07 <jamesn> chair: JamesNurthen
18:03:14 <Adam_Page> scribe: Adam_Page
18:03:17 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
18:03:17 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- -> New Issue Triage https://bit.ly/3IkWTy3 -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:03:58 <Adam_Page> jamesn: #1870
18:04:13 <Adam_Page> ... no new issues
18:04:19 <Adam_Page> ... need to assign?
18:04:21 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: nope
18:04:25 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
18:04:25 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- -> New PR Triage https://bit.ly/40PGA4J -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:04:39 <Adam_Page> jamesn: #1872
18:04:44 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_ : will discuss later
18:04:48 <Adam_Page> jamesn: #188
18:05:21 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I think related issue is merged
18:05:31 <Adam_Page> ... two more followed it
18:05:44 <Adam_Page> ... need to merge #187 first
18:06:11 <Adam_Page> jamesn: we’ve got enough reviewers
18:06:18 <Adam_Page> jamesn: #1871
18:06:32 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_ : we talked about this last week
18:06:33 <Adam_Page> pkra : on hold
18:06:34 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
18:06:34 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- -> Deep Dive planning https://bit.ly/aria-meaty-topic-candidates -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:06:54 <Adam_Page> jamesn: any deep dive suggestions for next week?
18:06:59 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I’m out next week
18:07:14 <Adam_Page> jamesn: there was something we’d planned for early March?
18:07:26 <Adam_Page> jcraig: yes, 2 weeks from today, but I don’t see it on my calendar
18:07:52 <Adam_Page> ... it‘s the minimum role topic
18:07:56 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: 2/23?
18:08:23 <melsumner> melsumner has joined #aria
18:08:38 <Adam_Page> jamesn: 2/23 is for aria-actions
18:09:19 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: we’ll do minimum role on 3/2
18:09:29 <Adam_Page> cyns: for Aaron, morning will be better
18:09:38 <Adam_Page> jamesn: ok, 3/2, but nothing for next week
18:11:46 <Adam_Page> jamesn: decision: minimum role on 3/2
18:11:59 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
18:11:59 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- -> Explain how values are obtained https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/184 -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:12:23 <Adam_Page> jamesn: we discussed *which* spec to put this in and chose accname
18:12:47 <Adam_Page> ... anyone have issues with it being in accname?
18:13:06 <Adam_Page> jcraig: name, description, and value seem reasonable in accname
18:13:15 <BenBeaudry> BenBeaudry has joined #aria
18:13:23 <Adam_Page> jamesn: basically good for text-y things
18:13:31 <Jem> Jem has joined #aria
18:13:40 <Jem> present+
18:13:40 <Adam_Page> chlane: this is actually an accname change, then?  won’t be core-aam?
18:13:50 <Adam_Page> jamesn: core-aam will probably need to reference it
18:14:33 <Adam_Page> chlane: we need to talk to BGaraventa about it
18:14:58 <Adam_Page> melsumner: I just spoke with BGaraventa last night and can take assignment of this issue
18:15:10 <Adam_Page> ... and can either work on it or bring back a resolution
18:15:13 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
18:15:13 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- -> Does the "Presentational Roles Conflict Resolution" always apply? https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1389 -- taken up [from agendabot]
18:15:24 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
18:15:32 <BenBeaudry> present+ BenBeaudry
18:15:55 <Adam_Page> pkra: I agenda'd this since it seemed to slip through the cracks, but doesn’t need to be a big item
18:15:59 <daniel-montalvo> present+ Daniel
18:16:04 <Adam_Page> jamesn: button might be an outlier on some of these things
18:16:23 <Adam_Page> ... certainly Chrome and some other user agents have changed and ignore the fact that button has an implicit presentation role
18:16:43 <Adam_Page> ... so that could be a reason behind it
18:17:06 <Adam_Page> ... if we are going to have this test, we should probably do something where the children presentational property of something is more respected.  Perhaps img?
18:17:46 <CurtBellew> CurtBellew has joined #aria
18:17:51 <Adam_Page> melsumner: I’d like to work on this one
18:17:57 <CurtBellew> present+
18:18:05 <Adam_Page> jamesn: great, first, get some examples that don’t use button
18:18:12 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #aria
18:18:18 <jcraig> q+
18:18:19 <StefanS> present+
18:18:24 <jcraig> present+
18:18:28 <jcraig> ack me
18:18:29 <Adam_Page> ... if no one is supporting its implicit role, why do we have it in the spec?
18:19:07 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I think I’m getting close to having web driver tests working, and this would be a great example of where we could write an automated test to see how browsers perform
18:19:30 <Adam_Page> ... I can run web driver tests already, there are basic tests for label and role
18:19:58 <Adam_Page> ... haven’t started on accname computation yet because there was suggestion that it’d be easier long-term to set up some infrastructure and additional test driver methods that don’t force every author to use web driver to test
18:20:08 <Adam_Page> ... infrastructure to make tests easier to write
18:20:20 <Adam_Page> jamesn: would you like to work with melsumner to develop tests for this?
18:20:33 <Adam_Page> jcraig: yes, can help set up repo
18:20:54 <Adam_Page> ... there’s a whole project called Interop 2023 Investigation
18:21:06 <Adam_Page> jamesn: I’d like to see that
18:21:07 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: me too
18:21:13 <Adam_Page> ... are there regular meetings?
18:21:19 <Adam_Page> jcraig: not yet, it’s all been in GitHub
18:21:34 <jcraig> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2023-accessibility-testing/issues/1
18:21:36 <Adam_Page> ... linked to accname #174 and then there are a bunch of cross-references
18:22:15 <jamesn> agenda?
18:22:18 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
18:22:20 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- -> Readme should document expectations of for New PR template and New Issue template (order, optionality, etc.) https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1861 -- taken up
18:22:20 <Zakim> ... [from agendabot]
18:22:38 <Adam_Page> pkra: should we do a deep dive on the last topic?
18:22:59 <Adam_Page> jcraig: sure, would love to.  It’s early stages still, but once we get first few commits up & running in WPT with results, that’ll be a good time for a deep dive
18:23:05 <Adam_Page> ... then others in the group could start writing tests
18:23:13 <Adam_Page> jamesn: would that before F2F?
18:23:22 <Adam_Page> jcraig: would be good to cover at F2F; in-person is better
18:23:38 <Adam_Page> ... we can troubleshoot Python together :-)
18:23:47 <Adam_Page> zakim, next item
18:23:47 <Zakim> agendum 7 -- -> 1.3 blocking issues https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22ARIA+1.3%22+sort%3Acreated-asc+label%3A1.3-Blocking+ -- taken up [from
18:23:50 <Zakim> ... agendabot]
18:24:04 <jamesn> zakim, take up item 6
18:24:04 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- -> Readme should document expectations of for New PR template and New Issue template (order, optionality, etc.) https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1861 -- taken up
18:24:07 <Zakim> ... [from agendabot]
18:24:57 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: this was an issue from jcraig about the PR template that we started to use
18:25:11 <Adam_Page> ... that there should be more information about the order tasks should be done for people opening new PRs
18:25:22 <Adam_Page> ... there is a process doc that I started after the last F2F at TPAC
18:25:35 <Adam_Page> ... I edited it a little with jcraig’s suggestions
18:25:43 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria/wiki/ARIA-WG-Process-Document
18:25:46 <Adam_Page> ... structured some of the information
18:25:52 <Adam_Page> ... would be great to get people to review
18:26:06 <Adam_Page> ... I also updated the Normative Change Checklist to give it a little more clarity
18:26:34 <Adam_Page> jcraig: this is a good time to talk about it bullet-by-bullet
18:27:00 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: Consensus is the first important step
18:27:18 <Adam_Page> ... this happens in an ad hoc way and we don’t always record our decisions
18:27:20 <Adam_Page> ... sometimes in minutes
18:27:28 <Adam_Page> ... but in general, we only merge things where there were no objections
18:27:39 <Adam_Page> jcraig: the definition of “has been discussed”...
18:27:43 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
18:27:49 <Adam_Page> ... is that verbally in a meeting?  Or does a thread in GitHub suffice?
18:28:26 <jamesn> q+
18:28:30 <jamesn> ack me
18:28:44 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: we could outline that more, a lot of times PRs have been opened _before_ there’s consensus as a means of getting to it
18:28:57 <Jem> AG is do voting for the change and create the "resolution" statement.
18:29:05 <Adam_Page> jamesn: we can’t quantify how much discussion is needed before merging in concrete terms
18:29:28 <Adam_Page> jcraig: how about “the ARIA WG” instead of “a working group”
18:29:38 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: good point, should be more specific
18:30:10 <Adam_Page> jamesn: don’t think we’ve ever merged a PR without any discussion
18:30:38 <Adam_Page> MattKing: is it sufficient, though?  To say “it’s been discussed in a meeting”?
18:32:43 <jcraig> q+ to suggest something like the CSSWG's discussion bot ("this issue was discussed in [link to minutes]") would be helpful
18:32:50 <Adam_Page> jamesn: this is only the first step, followed by a review process, and several others
18:32:55 <Adam_Page> MattKing: oh, I see
18:34:03 <Adam_Page> ... if a normative change is in the works, it’s important to identify that so the timeline/urgency will be clear to all members
18:34:37 <Adam_Page> jamesn: since this is 1 of 6 steps, maybe we should run through the rest and make sure that concern is addressed in the whole process
18:35:02 <Adam_Page> ... we don’t want to go back to a process that relies too heavily on email
18:35:59 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: I appreciate that, and we can make this step clearer.  We can leave PRs in draft as a signal that there’s not consensus
18:36:20 <Adam_Page> MattKing: yes, a stronger meaning for draft vs. non-draft — that’s a good idea
18:36:35 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: we do have a lot of open PRs right now; maybe some of them should be in draft
18:36:39 <Adam_Page> ... moving on to step 2: Review
18:36:48 <Adam_Page> ... 3 approving reviews for a normative change
18:37:07 <Adam_Page> ... added a bullet: the review should be based on the text & meaning of the change, not on whether the checklist has been fulfilled
18:37:27 <Adam_Page> MattKing: one thing we could do here is address specific significant stakeholders
18:37:58 <Adam_Page> ... if we could identify those people while the PR is in the draft stage, then by the time we get to review, they’ll be prepared
18:38:17 <Adam_Page> jamesn: we should add something like “you can always add yourself as a reviewer”
18:38:26 <Adam_Page> jcraig: and the PR owner should also recommend specific reviewers
18:39:07 <Adam_Page> MattKing: are there people outside the group who may not be able to add themselves?
18:39:21 <Adam_Page> ... or even _be_ added?
18:39:41 <Adam_Page> jamesn: Jamie had been the hard one, but he’s in the group now
18:39:59 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: I think we basically do already have the process you’re describing
18:40:32 <Adam_Page> jamesn: as chairs, we always try to involve reviewers we know would care
18:40:36 <jamesn> q?
18:40:51 <jamesn> ack jcr
18:40:51 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to suggest something like the CSSWG's discussion bot ("this issue was discussed in [link to minutes]") would be helpful
18:41:11 <Adam_Page> jcraig: sometimes we’ll ask for 4 reviewers if there are API-specific changes
18:41:15 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #aria
18:41:21 <Matt_King> present+
18:42:10 <Jem> This is a great process for the woarking group. I am so glad to see this effort.
18:42:26 <Adam_Page> s/MattKing/Matt_King/
18:42:55 <jamesn> fyi CSSbot issue - https://github.com/dbaron/wgmeeting-github-ircbot/issues/69
18:42:57 <Adam_Page> jcraig: in step 3, Test, we should add that “if the change is testable, tests should be written” _before_ merge
18:43:07 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: yes, agreed, happy to make that change
18:44:00 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: except for validators, norms for tests are a bit in flux — so for now, good to just create an issue in the ARIA repo describing the tests that need to be written
18:44:21 <jamesn> q?
18:45:18 <Adam_Page> jamesn: we do occasionally have a PR with a bunch of reviewers, and we’ll accept them even when not everyone has approved.  Do we need a process to be able to ignore some reviewers?
18:45:29 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: need a distinction between mandatory and optional reviewers?
18:46:08 <Adam_Page> jcraig: some GitHub repos are very strict about that and require a ~3-day review period
18:47:23 <melsumner> I think it would be super useful for our group to have a time limit on reviews, even if it's pretty long. Sometimes it feels like an issue can sit for so long that we all forget what the original driving purpose was.
18:47:43 <Adam_Page> Matt_King: we do need to be careful.  If it’s a single person who said they wanted to review but there’s some life event keeping them from reviewing, we should at least reach out
18:47:49 <pkra> "more optional reviewers" => "additional reviewers" ?
18:48:27 <Adam_Page> Matt_King: maybe explicitly get consent from them to dismiss their review
18:49:04 <Adam_Page> ... maybe at the point a PR goes from draft to ready-for-review, we start a ~30-day timer
18:50:19 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I don‘t think we should minute reaching out to absent reviewers, it could resemble public shaming
18:50:36 <Adam_Page> ... we should rely on the documented process
18:51:43 <melsumner> What if we add language that chairs can use reasonable discretion for exceptions
18:52:58 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: great, I’ll make another draft after this meeting
18:53:26 <Adam_Page> ... next, a step regarding APG: if a change is required there
18:53:35 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I think APG should be last in the process
18:53:58 <Adam_Page> Matt_King: it depends, I think there will be some features — like aria-actions — where APG would be helpful to tackle earlier
18:54:53 <Adam_Page> ... recommend we add a tag to identify those (e.g., “aria-specification-dependency”) and agree on when it should occur
18:55:31 <Adam_Page> Jem: I agree, it should be a continuous part of the process, not at the end
18:55:43 <Adam_Page> jamesn: we’re trying not to have wiki pages
18:55:46 <Jem> ARIA does not have apg label yet so apg label will be great.
18:55:54 <jcraig> q+ to discuss the implementation step #6. what pointer should we use for the implementation bugs
18:56:00 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: the next requirement is implementation
18:56:39 <Adam_Page> ... in my experience, implementation often results in feedback on the PR
18:56:47 <Adam_Page> ... so at least one needs to happen before merge
18:57:11 <Adam_Page> Matt_King: yes, this is similar to APG — that can also result in feedback
18:57:52 <jamesn> ack jcraig
18:57:52 <Zakim> jcraig, you wanted to discuss the implementation step #6. what pointer should we use for the implementation bugs
18:58:01 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: the PR checklist requires browser issues are linked to
18:58:32 <Adam_Page> jcraig: I haven’t found a great place to point implementation bugs to until the content is in the editor’s draft
18:58:37 <BenBeaudry> BenBeaudry has joined #aria
18:58:53 <Adam_Page> jcraig: do we have a recommendation for how to point to the current version even when it’s not merged?
18:59:10 <Adam_Page> jamesn: great point, need to see why the Preview link is so often broken
18:59:41 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_: last one is related spec changes
19:00:07 <Adam_Page> jcraig: my only concern with this is potential merge conflicts
19:00:35 <Adam_Page> Matt_King: at F2F, we said if you’re the owner of a PR, you should be rebasing/merging on a regular basis
19:00:48 <Adam_Page> ... so this shouldn’t normally be a problem
19:00:54 <Adam_Page> spectranaut_ : we’ll have to work this out
19:01:00 <Jem> Again, this is super awesome discussion. (APG label in ARIA Github will be great.)
19:01:02 <Adam_Page> ... but at the end of the meeting
19:01:10 <jamesn> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/489
19:01:31 <Adam_Page> jamesn: good news — ARIA 1.2 has had a transition request sent out with an estimated publication date of Feb 21
19:01:39 <Adam_Page> ... now requires a director to approve
19:01:46 <Adam_Page> daniel-montalvo: hope to have an update on that this Friday
19:02:07 <Adam_Page> jamesn: once transition is approved, it goes to PR, then AC reps have to approve it before it goes to recommendation?
19:02:16 <Adam_Page> daniel-montalvo: yes
19:02:47 <Adam_Page> jamesn: hopefully it will be done before next week‘s meeting and we can all ping our AC reps
19:02:58 <Adam_Page> jcraig: thank you spectranaut_ for all the process doc work
19:03:19 <Adam_Page> zakim, end meeting
19:03:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been arigilmore, spectranaut_, pkra, Adam_Page, Jem, BenBeaudry, Daniel, CurtBellew, StefanS, jcraig, Matt_King
19:03:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:03:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/16-aria-minutes.html Zakim
19:03:30 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Adam_Page; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
19:03:30 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria
19:17:36 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #aria
19:17:52 <Adam_Page> Adam_Page has joined #aria
20:21:48 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria
21:16:47 <jongund> jongund has joined #aria
21:21:34 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria
21:52:37 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria
22:00:44 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria
22:27:02 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria
22:28:30 <howard-e_> howard-e_ has joined #aria
22:50:09 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria
23:14:04 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria
23:33:51 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria