Meeting minutes
<gb> /issues/103 -> #103
<gb> /issues/101 -> #101
<Fazio> zakim pick a victim
New Business
Fazio: we know zero project is coming. is there anything else?
janina: are we meetign next week?
Fazio: I would say know unless Sheri wants to show up and run the meeting.
janina: no meeting next week
<Fazio> No meeting next week
Github Issues 43, 78, 85, 103, 104 (Usability doc feedback)
stacey: tons of updates in the doc but not for the meeting. I have all of the dimensions that we have discussed. I would love to have a working session when we meet.
stacey: looking forward for a working session when we meet
<stacey> Please review for our next meeting (working session-yay!): https://
sbyrnehaber: I can take a day trip to CSUN if you guys want to meet in person
Fazio: want everyone to review this issue.
stacey: Everyone should have comment access. If you don't please let me know
Maturity Model Scoring Subgroup Update
kline: hopefully in the next week we should have something
Github Issue #103 Where are the "Outcomes" in the Maturity Model Structure?
<gb> /issues/103 -> #103
Fazio: if anyone wants to work on scoring subgroup, touch-base with Jeff
<Fazio> w3c/
<gb> Issue 103 Where are the "Outcomes" in the Maturity Model Structure? (by jake-abma)
Fazio: this is from Jake from a couple of years.
kline: the outcome on each stage is subjective. so I am not sure if I agree
Fazio: proof points that we are displaying are only recommended to use. it could be something else.
kline: history- I believe after we published our first draft, Jake came up with a spreadsheet icnluding a few recommendations. We have proof points and then maturity stage which is pretty simple.
janina: we can substitute our language. not worried about different term. We understand, we have confidence that out come can reach based upon the recommended proof points.
kline: we do have three elements. we ahve generic outcomes at each stage for all the proof points
Fazio: we are talking about what is the structure here
proof points, outcome, stages..
janina: we have confidence in outcome and stages
janina: we asses from a different view points.
<Fazio> this issue was inadvertently covered last week in issue 103 see minutes: https://
Github Issue #102Proof Point definition to be adjusted to fit under an Outcome
<Fazio> w3c/
<gb> Issue 102 Proof Point definition to be adjusted to fit under an Outcome (by jake-abma)
<kline> Proof point levels of maturity (stages) are compared against the outcome definition for that dimension at that level
Fazio: Jake said, "The proof point is directly linked to the dimension, while it should be linked to an outcome, another proof point might be used for the same outcome if it fits..."
<gb> /issues/101 -> #101
janina: I wonder if it should be outcome in dimension
<kline> specific to the stage outcomes
<kline> for a dimension
<Fazio> Proposed: proof point Written or tangible evidence specific to an outcome of a dimension that can be used to measure the maturity for that specific outcome.
<janina> outcome in a dimension
<kline> proof point Written or tangible evidence specific to stage outcomes of a dimension that can be used to assess the maturity for that specific outcome.
Fazio: proof point dont achieve stage but outcome
kline: we might be over analyze it
janina: it is important to make this clear
janina: I am nervous having plural stages
<kline> outcomes defined for each stage
<kline> Written or tangible evidence specific to outcomes defined for each stage of a dimension that can be used to assess the maturity for that specific outcome.
<sbyrnehaber> Written or tangible evidence specific to outcomes defined for each stage of a dimension. This evidence can be used to assess the maturity for that specific dimension.
<sbyrnehaber> Written or tangible evidence specific to outcomes defined for each stage of a dimension. This evidence is used to assess the maturity for that dimension.
Github Issue #101 What do we mean with 'aspects'? Used in two ways i.c.w. 'dimensions'
<gb> /issues/101 -> #101