Meeting minutes
New Business
stacey: Dr. Keath Newton has been using the model and would like to share live how he’s using and putting comments in Gethub
Fazio__: Stacy gave an enabling talk on LLMs – they have equity bias. If we don’t look at equity that bias could creep in – do we want an equity dimension?
janina: Play Devils advice – I agree we’ll about equity but it is equity of web content. We should look at what we want to add before we add it. We should invite? This could be a slippery slope and we should consider carefully.
sus
SusanaPallero: Wondering if it is a dimension or should be embedded it in all the dimensions (what would the proof points be)
stacey: Can we all have a unified source to point people to?
Fazio__: Chapter in Germany is obsolete and boring, we need freshness to keep people engaged. M-Enabling talked on LLM and the bias they could have. Reasonable accommodation. Need equity through diff cultures.
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to say would we be starting down a slippery slope? and to
janina: In recent history we changed the way we talk about out environment. We dropped master-slave terminology.
Fazio__: We’re talking about more than just language. We don’t need to hash it out now. We do need Savia
stacey: Work together to figure out what should be in here. There should be a connection.
<SusanaPallero> +1 to janina
GitHub Issue 21 Flow of "A Maturity Model is:" need a little bit of love
Janina: Equity could be inside culture?
janina: Maybe it needs to be it goes in culture.
CharlesL: Maybe change dimension to equity and culture
janina: It is one of the intersectional cultural points.
Fazio__: First git hub: The maturity model needs a little bit of love.
stacey: Read the section
Fazio__: David closed the issue and say its been edited.
<CharlesL> Section found in: https://
janina: Reopen the issue if not satisfied.
GitHub Issue #28 No "Appendix" present for "1.3 Existing Research" (Delete?)
Fazio__: Next item
CharlesL: No longer talk about 6 models. It’s been changed delete it.
GitHub Issue #43 Should "proof points" and "ratings for evaluation" sections be combined for clarity?
janina: Just close the issue
Fazio__: next issue 43
<CharlesL> w3c/
<CharlesL> w3c/
Fazio__: I agree the usability is a little difficult
janina: Maybe interlocking hyperlinks
<SusanaPallero> I am in!
stacey: It could get cognitively challenging
Fazio__: Stacey and Susana forming a group to look at usability
GitHub Issue #45 Would it be better to avoid the overlap between section 3.3 and sections 3.1 and 3.2?
<CharlesL> w3c/
Fazio__: Next issue 45
stacey: https://
<SusanaPallero> https://
<janina> Associate your github with W3C work: https://
stacey: need to be assigned to the issue 43 when we figure out why account isn't findable
Fazio__: I thought we said overlap in the dimensions was important should we call it out how do we want to approach?
<janina> So, maybe it's a matter of another checkbox related to this TF? That's a Roy thing.
CharlesL: Ideally, when you fill out something in one tab is would autofill into the overlapping in forms.
<janina> Suggest email Roy: Roy Ran <ran@w3.org>
Fazio__: Anything else?
Fazio__: Should we edit?
janina: Too early in the process to fully edit now.
CharlesL: Close for now and invite them when ready
<CharlesL> https://
Fazio__: Message: we publish and updated draft. We took into consideration your feedback. If you still feel there is an issue please reopen it.
Fazio__: No meeting next week -M-enabling.
stacey: Dr. Keith it good for the 18th.