Meeting minutes
Taskforce Standup Update
Chuck: I'd like to do a quick standup update.
maryjom: For WCAG2ICT, we have 4 criterion and 3 definitions that are under review. Under 5 issues in the WCAG2ICT space.
… it will continue until the 12th, and in that meeting we'll be going over the results.
Chuck: Are there any robust conversations likely?
<Chuck> acl Cj
maryjom: Not been much response yet, hard to say.
mbgower: Alastair will speak tomorrow on process for the AG group. We're having a weekly planning call.
… got a bit bogged down in a process discussion. Got a plan to get out of that.
… we'll usher things through a bit faster so we have a clear board to be working with.
<maryjom> For the WCAG2ICT review, here's a link to the issues for the various bits for review: https://
Chuck: ACT is currently engaged with some rules.
<Chuck> Alastair: ACT has 2 things that are coming up for review. Set of rules and update to note document.
Chuck: Any other works we know of?
<Chuck> Alastair: Coga had a meeting with internationalization. Trying to establish best way of testing things out working with that group. Early meeting. Robust good natured conversation. Took a while to start speaking on same page.
Taskforce Engagement conversation
Chuck: We have this in draft
… to re-inforce, the TF and facilitators determine how the TF reaches consensus.
… e.g. WCAG2ICT can use surveys.
… but when bringing things to AG, we're looking for github issues to be created.
… if that gets consensus, it is annouced at the meeting and we move on.
… if not, can discuss at the meeting.
… we're trying to asyncronously get through the issues.
… for Normative updates it is similar, but then also goes for email CFC.
… if not consensus then we have a conversation in a meeting, then CFC
Chuck: This is our draft process, happy to tweak. We've not had a big history with this process, but other groups have been doing this for a while.
… any questions/comments?
bruce_bailey: Are we missing a task force page for backlog?
<Chuck> Alastair: One of the things we need for the update is the work statement. I forgot to bring up in our last meeting.
maryjom: Possible tangential issue? Got a message from COGA, and wondering how an extended time for COGA fits in the process?
Rachael: this is a question of horizontal review, across our TFs and other groups.
… it should be around the same time the github goes out. Otherwise, once AG appoves we'll have to send out to a wider group of people/groups.
maryjom: don't other TFs get notifications?
Rachael: Not as well as we'd like, good to send direct. Plus APA and internationalisation that should be included (for some things).
Chuck: There are TFs and peer working groups, is there a differentiation between these?
… (in terms of how they are notified)
… the best way to involve COGA is a slightly separate topic. For the horizontal review, if we add it in our TF process, when would AG want to do the review. I'm worried about the review.
Rachael: Technically Horiz-review is between groups, but not sure it matters if we treat them separately.
… it would be useful to list any group/TF who should review things.
… some groups have tags that you can add which trigger their reviews.
… that seems like the right place to request things.
<Chuck> Alastair: Thinking, we need some form of guidance and triage for what goes up for review and by who. Internationalization won't want to be involved in all groups. Who needs to know what?
mbgower: Similar coment, we'd normally have an editorial phase for style, then other types of review.
… just wondering, for i18n and COGA, how they wouldn't be caught by those phases?
maryjom: For me, for WCAG2ICT we're in a different repo, are they watching?
… it's a bit confusing. When is the right time to review?
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think it's tagging, not opening up a specific issue?
maryjom: it's when we put out public reviews. Had one in Aug, got one in march.
Chuck: Mention of tags onto existing issues. Is that the intent?
… also, in WCAG2ICT context, the upcoming one in March would be where we want to tag for wider review.
… COGA's different, don't think tagging would work there? We'd want to call their attention more discretely
Chuck: would a tag be sufficient for COGA?
Rachael: i18n has setup a script to search all W3C repos to find all the issues, and notify the chairs. Roy is setting one up for COGA, although not sure it's scripted.
… but I'd tag it and then email JulieR who is the liason. She's responsible for tracking AG wide things for COGA.
… they are the two who give us the biggest gotchas.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest tagging things in agenda?
<Chuck> Alastair: Suggest... if we are putting things on agenda for AG, or adding for future topics, is that a good point to tag with Coga or any of the others? We probably need a list.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we can use judgement on when we think Coga would want to review some content
<Rachael> +1 to creating a list (maybe a new slide) and listing preferred contact mechansim
Chuck: I think the chairs do own that, making a list and determining when to engage others.
<bruce_bailey> First (?) post in thread: https://
Chuck: regarding COGA, hearing that we need to get them engaged early on, do we always get them involved?
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention coga-related WAI-IG thread on Authentication
bruce_bailey: I don't think waiting until the end is suitable.
… the thread above on authentication, some people on COGA thought they'd changed the intention of the SC.
Chuck: That's something for MaryJo and I to tag in issues.
… are there issues for us to do now?
Chuck: Meeting out of time, we'll ajurn now