– DRAFT –
AG-Facilitators-2023-11-20

introductions

formalities?

Wilco: I think we should have a scribe.

Chuck: From this meeting forward, we will have a scribe

Engaging with AGWG

Engaging with AGWG

Chuck: We will only capture decisions, not moment by moment discussion.

<Rachael> process: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14qG2f-ZkhFDqox_qmzqC5tCUt1xJaumkJS2l5GaD-3o/edit#slide=id.g25ec4815c64_0_0

Chuck: Are there any concerns with following a new-to-AG process instead of surveys?

Wilco: How is it different?

Rachael: Traditionally, every update has been surveyed with back and forth discussions; this has taken a long time, near the end of the process, often re-raising previously tackled questions

Rachael: With the new process, you would open a new Please review issue; if no response came back, it would be brought up for final check on a meeting

Rachael: Also talked about bringing to AG at first draft and final publication

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that the traditional approach has sometimes been disruptive

Chuck: Discussion would be contained in the issue

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that still will happen, just not in a call

Wilco: By not engaging with AG, we risk TF direction not aligned with the WG.

Chuck: Github lets us work more asynchrously while still having checks; it's aways a risk becoming unaligned

<Chuck> +1

Alastair: The nature of the TF can affect the process

[Alastair plays back the drafted process for the WCAG 2.x TF

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hMlnPy1IW3uVe_QqiPYVND_HKkVqqamx/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=118419493369958965106&rtpof=true&sd=true

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if you can paste that link in ir....

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if you can paste the discussion board link into irc?

<alastairc> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1

<Rachael> +1 to this meeting being needed more regularly

<Chuck> mbgower: Categorizing the changes in terms of our perceived impact. The bug fixes are broken links and typos. We are just fixing something. Then there's editorial.

<Chuck> mbgower: Some wording is being changed in some way. Poorly phrased, improve w/o altering meaning. Substantive: we are adding something meaningful.

<Chuck> mbgower: Hopefully with that categorizing we can highlight the impactful. That remains to be seen.

<bruce_bailey> Noting that quantity of backlog GitHub issues is order of magnitude more than with WCAG2ICT and ACT.

<Chuck> mbgower: Not sure to what degree the task force has the same... Are ACT non-impactful?

introductions

frequency and format?

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/3549

<Wilco> Here's how I did it last week. new rules -> deprecation -> various editorial

<bruce_bailey> Wilco notes that ACT bug fix PRs are numerous.