15:45:26 RRSAgent has joined #ag 15:45:30 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ag-irc 15:45:30 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:45:31 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 15:45:55 zakim, clear agenda 15:45:55 agenda cleared 15:46:08 agenda+ WCAG 2 scoping discussion update https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/4188#discussioncomment-11830612 15:46:22 zakim, clear agenda 15:46:22 agenda cleared 15:46:37 agenda+ WCAG 2.x issue batch https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2024Dec/0005.html 15:46:53 agenda+ WCAG 2 scoping discussion update https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/4188#discussioncomment-11830612 15:47:00 agenda+ Review handbook updates 15:47:33 agenda+ Pathway subgroup kick off 15:49:46 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 15:57:10 DJ has joined #ag 15:57:12 present+ 15:57:48 agenda? 15:57:55 chair: alastairc 15:57:59 present: alastairc 15:58:10 present+ DJ 15:58:55 present+ 15:59:02 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:59:51 filippo-zorzi has joined #ag 16:00:24 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 16:00:32 present+ 16:00:50 present+ 16:00:53 bruce_bailey has joined #ag 16:01:00 present+ 16:01:12 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 16:01:33 MJ has joined #ag 16:01:41 Rain has joined #ag 16:01:51 present+ 16:02:00 present+ 16:02:34 ShawnT has joined #ag 16:02:40 present+ 16:02:44 present+ 16:02:50 present+ 16:02:51 scribe: hdv 16:03:06 agenda? 16:03:09 TOPIC: Intros or Topics 16:03:32 alastairc: any newcomers or changes of affiliation? 16:03:32 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 16:03:34 present+ 16:03:34 zakim, take up item 1 16:03:34 agendum 1 -- WCAG 2.x issue batch https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2-issues/2024Dec/0005.html -- taken up [from alastairc] 16:03:43 Wilco has joined #ag 16:03:50 alastairc: we have some WCAG 2 stuff to look at first 16:04:24 scott has joined #ag 16:04:25 Makoto has joined #ag 16:04:26 alastairc: *shares the board https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/56/views/1 * 16:04:26 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/4128 16:04:33 present+ 16:04:54 alastairc: this is on an update to Failure 2, it was highlighted the example wasn't really valid, this is to remove the example 16:05:07 alastairc: in the project board, we have a 'Sent for WG approval' column 16:05:08 Glenda has joined #ag 16:05:14 sarahhorton has joined #ag 16:05:20 present+ 16:05:26 dan_bjorge has joined #ag 16:05:27 alastairc: for these we have general support it seems, feel free to check them if you're curious 16:05:28 present+ 16:05:32 mbgower has joined #ag 16:05:36 present+ 16:06:02 alastairc: in the For Discussion column… one of those is the “user inactivity” definition… we found it wasn't in alphabetical order and it was missing the 'note' class 16:06:16 alastairc: we had some support, but one thumbs down, no comments 16:06:29 alastairc: we also have one on target size, will come up in our discussion 16:06:34 q? 16:06:42 alastairc: please do check the board if you can or are interested in WCAG 2 updates 16:06:50 present+ 16:06:51 Laura_Carlson has joined #ag 16:06:52 zakim, take up next item 16:06:52 agendum 2 -- WCAG 2 scoping discussion update https://github.com/w3c/wcag/discussions/4188#discussioncomment-11830612 -- taken up [from alastairc] 16:06:57 The e-mail doesn't ask for comments, just a vote 16:07:04 Akash-shukla has joined #ag 16:07:14 present+ Laura_Carlson 16:07:21 alastairc: last week we discussed what things we felt comfortable to count as errate updates 16:07:26 present+ 16:07:30 I need to leave at the second hour. 16:07:31 alastairc: we had several examples of things we looked at last week 16:07:44 Detlev has joined #ag 16:07:53 present+ 16:08:13 alastairc: the update since last week is whether and how we could make a differentiation for a new updated version of WCAG 2.2 16:08:53 alastairc: I posted a couple of option, including some kind of stronger date stamping (wouldn't affect URLs we'd just announce there's a new date stamped version with minor changes), the other was a minor dot release, eg WCAG 2.2.1, would be an indicator that it has been updated in a minor way 16:09:24 Wilco "The e-mail doesn't ask for comments, just a vote". If you're referring to the original proposed changes, it states: 16:09:24 Give a thumbs up on the pull request description to agree. We are looking for >4 +1 votes (activating the 👍 emoji) for substantive or errata changes 16:09:24 Or provide feedback in the Conversation to request changes 16:09:37 alastairc: another proposal, from Wilco, was to put it under a new URL… if I'mreading correctly, the title would be “WCAG 2.2 2025 revision”, would have a new URL, eg /TR/WCAG22-version-2025 16:10:19 DJ has joined #ag 16:10:25 alastairc: one thing nobody seemed to argue with… if we were making changes that update how people interpret conformance, that we should go through a public review process 16:10:31 alastairc: but that is a separate thing re URLs and names 16:10:40 q+ 16:10:55 alastairc: any Qs or comments? 16:10:55 jon_avila has joined #ag 16:10:58 toddl has joined #ag 16:11:02 present+ 16:11:03 present+ 16:11:04 present+jon_avila 16:11:13 ack GreggVan 16:12:08 GreggVan: if you're changing the conformance model, it really would have to get a new number, or you'd get endless confusion re what 2.2 is 16:12:11 ljoakley1 has joined #ag 16:12:16 present+ 16:12:26 +1 to what GreffVan is saying 16:12:27 GreggVan: eg if we publish something new with the same increment number that is not the same thing 16:12:27 q+ on "refinement" 16:12:35 present+ 16:12:52 ack alastairc 16:12:52 alastairc, you wanted to comment on "refinement" 16:13:10 alastairc: not sure there's a difference in those? 16:13:43 alastairc: eg one of the cases I included was changing Timing Adjustable so that it is clear in that clause whether it is 10x original time or 10 opportunities to extend time. Some interpret this as 'you can do either'. I don't think that was the original intent 16:13:58 alastairc: in my mind that would be a refinement. But if people were interpreting as 'either', then clarifying = changing it 16:14:05 +1 what we meant isn't the requirement. What we said is 16:14:09 alastairc: (is the argument people are making) 16:14:15 q+ 16:14:29 Azlan has joined #ag 16:14:34 q+ to comment on process for patch versions or similar 16:14:35 q+ 16:14:36 GreggVan: what about conformance model? 16:14:37 present+ 16:14:47 alastairc: ah no it's about interpreting specific bits of criteria, not the conformance model 16:14:47 ack Glenda 16:15:28 q+ on one-way backwards compatibility 16:15:29 Glenda: if normative is changed, you can now pass a success criteria, because normative was changed to lower the requirement, and the version number did not change, then we have testing methodologies around the world where people didn't have patch that that happend, as they're not hanging on our every word 16:16:11 Glenda: eventhough W3C allows us to call it 'errata', any normative change must have a version number, only then it would be cristal clear something changed 16:16:13 ack kevin 16:16:13 kevin, you wanted to comment on process for patch versions or similar 16:16:45 kevin: if we go down the route of patch changes, it's effective going to trigger the whole process for public working drafts, incl AC review 16:17:15 ack GreggVan 16:17:24 This is covered under https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#correction-classes 16:17:34 GreggVan: I think we should make clear that we're not talking about changing conformance model, just about normative changes 16:18:38 GreggVan: if you're not changing what the intended meaning is but just the language to make it clearer, it's not normative to me 16:18:42 -1. The working group's intent is basically irrelevant if the intent is in conflict with the language as written, if the language as written is legally required. 16:18:56 GreggVan: if it's not important I would not going to go through a whole process 16:20:11 GreggVan: not sure how to label merging in errata 16:20:29 regrets+ Brian Elton 16:21:15 regrets+ Tiffany Burtin 16:21:21 present+ 16:21:35 alastairc: in the case of PR #4122 it doesn't seem that this is the type of language change we're talking about here 16:22:03 alastairc: so sunmarising, there's things that can count as errata, can republish without new URL or version number, and others cannot 16:22:23 alastairc: in other cases we'd need new URLs or version numbers 16:22:23 q+ 16:22:41 alastairc: in that case I'd say we'd consider a WCAG 2.3, which we'd highlight as a 'no new features version' 16:22:44 ack alastairc 16:22:44 alastairc, you wanted to comment on one-way backwards compatibility 16:22:55 ack GreggVan 16:23:00 alastairc: like the 'snow leopard' version that Apple released for macOS some years ago 16:23:07 GreggVan: how important are these changes you're talking about 16:23:28 q+ 16:23:28 Would WCAG 2.3 have any substantive changes that would require a11y experts around the world to revise their manual testing methodologies? 16:23:59 q+ on potential changes. 16:24:08 q- 16:24:22 GreggVan what are the changes? if it's just 2.2 but we've just updated some word, that doesn't seem sufficiently substantive 16:24:34 q+ to say 1) the w3c process supports clarifications that may affect interpretation as an errata process 2) there is overall agreement that we want to improve the standard 3) the nub of the discussion appears to be around how we go about publishing those changes and the impact of any specific change (errata versus 'stamped' versions) 16:25:03 Is one of the substance changes “Align AAA criteria with newer criteria” For example, adjusting the inline-text exception of Target Size (Enhanced) with Target Size (min), e.g https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2858 16:25:18 ack alastairc 16:25:18 alastairc, you wanted to comment on potential changes. 16:25:20 alastairc: could get a list of changes. At this time there are quite a few, but it seems none of the individual changes seem worth the process 16:25:30 ack mbgower 16:25:30 mbgower, you wanted to say 1) the w3c process supports clarifications that may affect interpretation as an errata process 2) there is overall agreement that we want to improve the 16:25:30 alastairc: seems more of a process to gather them up 16:25:33 ... standard 3) the nub of the discussion appears to be around how we go about publishing those changes and the impact of any specific change (errata versus 'stamped' versions) 16:25:49 mbgower: W3C process does support clariifcation on interpretation within the errata process 16:25:59 mbgower: have no problem going more tight than W3C process, but wanted to make that clear 16:26:27 mbgower: seems like there is overall agreement re improving the standard. More of question re how 16:27:02 mbgower: we probablhy don't want to fix one typo and call it WCAG 2.3, but maybe in the next while there'll be an number of issues that could could go into a 'WCAG 2.3 bucket' 16:27:23 q+ sfaulkner 16:27:44 +1 (want to improve the standard) but…I’m not cool with substance changes under errata (the types of changes that would require a11y experts to all adjust their manual testing method…or…require tool vendors to change the way an automated rule logic works). If we say we are testing to WCAG 2.2 (but there are 2 versions of WCAG 2.2)…which one do we really mean? 16:27:48 mbgower: can we figure out where the threshold is to go through this? glad we're having this convo. 16:27:57 Frankie has joined #ag 16:27:59 ack sfa 16:28:02 present+ 16:28:05 I have no problem with typos being resolved as errata 16:28:35 jtoles has joined #ag 16:28:48 present+ 16:28:50 wendyreid has joined #ag 16:28:53 q+ 16:28:54 present+ 16:29:01 sfaulkner: just wanted to ask why would we want to go further than the rules defined by the W3C errate process? I understand consensus, but if we find there are conflicts that could inform improving the W3C errata process? 16:29:04 q+ 16:29:21 sfaulkner: we shouldn't create extra work for ourselves or others? 16:29:21 ack dan_bjorge 16:30:02 dan_bjorge: I disagree with Steve'\s position. The rules that apply to errata make sense to most W3C recommendation, but what we're working on is, in practice, a legal standard, so to me, it makes complete sense for us to be more conservatives 16:30:05 ack Glenda 16:30:13 s/conservatives/conservative 16:30:52 Glenda: was shocked to see that the W3C allows for substance changes that increase or decrease requirements… I sat down wiht Chaals and asked if this is how it was meant 16:31:09 q+ 16:31:18 q+ 16:31:38 Glenda: my understanding is that, just like Dan just said, this is more for other standards of W3C, and WCAG is a special case as it is in legislation worldwide and 1000s of humans around the word need to potentially re-learn what things mean 16:31:48 ack jon_avila 16:31:52 q? 16:31:55 +1 we make it easier on ourselves by making it harder for everyone else 16:32:11 maryjom has joined #ag 16:32:17 jon_avila: am not sure about the legal standard, but what I know is that versions of WCAG are incorporated into many regulations 16:32:49 jon_avila: they tend to be incorporated with specific version numbers, eg in Section 508 and European standards, have specific numbers 16:33:10 q- 16:33:19 jon_avila: eg in ADA WCAG is more of a benchmark, in a court it would be more about if a person could perform a task and less about conforming to WCAG 16:33:53 jon_avila: so if we're talking about this as a legal standard, I understand the challenges. The group's opinions have changed over time, that's a problem as we have inconsistencies and changes over time 16:33:54 rrsagent, please generate minutes 16:33:55 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/21-ag-minutes.html wendyreid 16:34:34 q/ 16:34:35 q? 16:34:38 jon_avila: if people don't agree what to pass and fail it's a problem, but we have that challenge today with Understanding docs. Not sure how to solve it other than putting out information stating it could be interpreted in different ways and both ways might be acceptable 16:35:23 alastairc: if there are things that are too unclear in normative text, what could next step be? 16:35:26 Jen_G has joined #ag 16:35:30 Draft poll: If there were substantive updates to WCAG 2.2 (not new requirements), is that best as 1) Errata, 2) a "WCAG22-2025" 3) a "WCAG 2.3". 16:35:34 q+ 16:35:34 alastairc: eg there are some things rre internationalisation 16:35:35 Present+ 16:35:48 q+ 16:35:52 ack Wilco 16:36:03 3 16:36:07 Wilco: I think we have more options than that… eg you could put that out there as a 3.0 16:36:17 q+ to say I think we need to define 'substantive' in this poll 16:36:24 Wilco: or you could put it out as a separate note, 'WCAG latest' that may or may not have version number 16:36:51 Alastair, when you say “substance changes to normative” do you mean it would increase what people can call a fail or decrease what people can call a fail? 16:36:51 q+ 16:36:51 Wilco: you could go out with just a year, like ECMA are doing with ES 2024, ES 2025 etc 16:36:51 ack Glenda 16:37:00 q+ 16:37:03 Glenda: I would like it if when you ask the question if you could be extra clear on if 'substance changes' would change what I can call a failure? 16:37:14 alastairc: I think in fairly minor ways… without knowing what the exact changes would be 16:37:25 alastairc: expect more towards non western languages 16:37:28 q+ 16:37:49 ack mbgower 16:37:49 mbgower, you wanted to say I think we need to define 'substantive' in this poll 16:37:52 alastairc: it could be changes that can change pass/fail 16:38:14 mbgower: it's useful to look at the W3C classes of changes 16:38:30 present+ 16:38:31 https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#correction-classes 16:38:37 mbgower: there is a line at the end of the bit about typos introducing class 3 16:39:02 Class 3 changes that effect pass/fail…I don’t support these as errata. 16:39:12 mbgower: conformance interpretation probably shouldn't fall under errata. But my concern is re the last line of class 2, where if anyone disagreed with anything, it would end up going into class 3 16:39:52 q+ on why 2.3 rather than 3, and not sure what yearly versions would broadcast 16:39:54 I’m totally cool with classes of changes 1 and 2 as errata. 16:40:25 ack GreggVan 16:40:42 q+ 16:40:56 by 'objection' I'm referring to this line: "If there is any doubt or disagreement as to whether a change functionally affects interpretation, that change does not fall into this class." 16:40:56 GreggVan: I think we should stop trying to argue in the abstract, we may change our minds 16:41:31 GreggVan: we can put as many as apt in class 2, and we can take care of those in errata 16:41:48 GreggVan: then re class 3, we need to look at the changes and figure out if they are substantive enoiugh to go through the process to put a new version out 16:42:45 ack wendyreid 16:42:49 GreggVan: don't think 2.2-2025 is a good idea, may add to confusion 16:42:50 q+ to note we have Class 3 changes to 2.1 which we all agree are errata 16:43:15 present+ 16:43:29 wendyreid: I think without being able to see the changes we're arguing about, some of this convo is getting a bit abstract 16:43:32 Example: let’s fix 1.3.1 so it is easier for all experts to agree what fails and what does not fail. I want this…but I could not support changes like this as errata. 16:44:03 wendyreid: it sounds inflammatory, if class 3 changes. can dramatically change the legal implications, we need specific examples 16:44:11 wendyreid: not sure if versioning is a good idea re general readability 16:44:12 +1 to Glenda 16:44:32 wendyreid: we might be able ot add extra explanation to the existing specs 16:44:35 Fixing 1.3.1 would be a Class 4 change 16:44:38 q- 16:44:57 ack alastairc 16:44:57 alastairc, you wanted to comment on why 2.3 rather than 3, and not sure what yearly versions would broadcast 16:45:02 wendyreid: doing a 2.2.1 is potentially going to be more inflammatory than adding additional notes to the current standards 16:45:08 s/standard/standards 16:45:12 s/standards/standard 16:45:21 https://www.w3.org/policies/process/20231103/#candidate-amendments 16:45:26 Here is a list of what was updated in the Dec release to help folks understand what HAS been changed https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#changelog 16:45:35 alastairc: would not agree 3.0 is a good idea as we've already announced what that would be, also not sure about year-versions 16:45:50 alastairc: re more substantive changes, we can bring a more concrete list to the group 16:45:53 ack Makoto 16:46:14 Wilco has joined #ag 16:46:30 Makoto: I have a comment re internationalisation. 2.2 is going to be the next version of the national standard in Japan, and maybe in other countries 16:46:46 Makoto: my concern is that the version of the national standard would not be the same as the latest version of WCAG 2.2 16:46:47 zakim, close the queue 16:46:47 ok, alastairc, the speaker queue is closed 16:47:03 q? 16:47:04 q+ 16:47:08 ack bruce_bailey 16:47:08 bruce_bailey, you wanted to note we have Class 3 changes to 2.1 which we all agree are errata 16:47:11 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/errata/#editorial-2018-06-05 16:47:33 bruce_bailey: many of these changes are class 3 changes, the process doc doesn't use the word errata 16:47:44 Laura_Carlson has joined #ag 16:47:54 bruce_bailey: class 3 and 4 are substantive, but only class 4 would historically cause a new version 16:48:27 s/next version of the national/next version of the ISO/IEC 40500 and national 16:49:13 kevin: makoto, to clarify, we would be able to reflect those changes in the ISO version as well 16:49:30 zakim, take up next item 16:49:30 agendum 3 -- Review handbook updates -- taken up [from alastairc] 16:50:02 q+ 16:50:05 GreggVan: re agendum 2: could we have a list of _all_ planned changes rather than some examples? 16:50:08 s/that the version of the national standard would not be the same/that the latest version of the ISO/IEC 40500 and national standards would not be the same 16:50:29 ack mbgower 16:51:19 mbgower: for context, as a starting point we rejected anything that would chagnge normative texts, but there could be some. We have tried to stay within scope of errata 16:51:25 q+ 16:51:33 mbgower: if we'd open it up broader there is a larger amount of possible things 16:51:35 ack Rachael 16:51:43 q+ 16:51:46 mbgower: and in general, complete list is hard, new issues are being added all the time 16:51:59 Rachael: want to clarify, substantive changes yes, new content, no 16:52:04 agreed, no new SCs intended 16:52:16 ack GreggVan 16:52:54 GreggVan: if we take all the editiorial stuff off the table, we can trust our editors to figure out what's editorial, but then all items that are not strictly editorial, can we gather those up? the ones we consider adding? 16:54:52 alastairc: ok, ending the WCAG 2 discussion, let's talk about WCAG 3 work now 16:55:28 alastairc: we're slightly changing how we work, which we've talked about a few times. We will have a slightly longer term per subgroups called pathways, that are groupings of guidelines 16:55:39 spreadsheet of guidelines divided by pathways: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ecg9qFIUVCUQfAPgNSEZ8MmsCSjbAynK8hbGBU8NrzQ/edit?gid=2035961492#gid=2035961492 16:55:41 alastairc: we've been requesting participation via a survey 16:56:10 survey of pathway participation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Path_Participation_25/ 16:56:24 alastairc: for each subgroup there will be 1-2 facilitators 16:56:28 alastairc: the subgroups should add the guidelines to the wiki 16:56:43 alastairc: chairs can support with that if you haven't 16:57:09 alastairc: we're recommending 4 weeks, with 2 meetings per week. First one would be the second hour of this Tuesday meeting, and there would be a second one outside of this one 16:57:39 alastairc: so we should have two hours of meeting, with everyone committing about 4 hrs that gives time for those meetings and some time in between 16:58:45 alastairc: in the google doc, we have guideline templates, and info on writing testable guidelines and requirements 16:59:05 AlinaV has joined #ag 16:59:07 q+ to ask for a scribe change 16:59:09 alastairc: we've also got a drive folder, where all of the developing documents can go in 16:59:27 scribe+ Rachael 16:59:31 ljoakley1 has left #ag 16:59:36 ack Ch 16:59:36 Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change 17:00:06 alastairc: There is a link to the spreadsheet earlier in the minutes 17:00:32 ...Also check back to the WCAG 3 document https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/ 17:00:52 scribe+ 17:01:07 ...The list of all requirements are in the list. Generally works to look at all requirements together and figure out what fits together. 17:01:10 Rachael: Iterative process. 17:01:21 alastairc: We have listing of people and who is in each group. 17:01:23 q+ 17:01:24 DJ has joined #ag 17:01:35 ...we are not sure if we have enough people for each group for this meeting. 17:01:36 q+ 17:01:37 ack GreggVan 17:01:51 scribe+ Chuck 17:02:14 GreggVan: Granularity. In the keyboard area, we found that it was easier to handle something as this is what we need to be true. These are what need to be true for that thing. Becuase when we test, we can test all at once. 17:02:52 ...rather than separately. Alternative is to have different things to be checking. Better to have it be larger which also lended itself to include the best practices. 17:02:58 ...you must do these and these are the best practices. 17:03:12 ...which way do we go? 17:03:26 ...Are we still early in the game and so can learn from variations? 17:03:47 q+ to say that our retrospective would be a good time to discuss approaches 17:03:49 alastairc: Gather examples. These are really key. When we looked through focus appearance, we had a lot of examples. 17:04:26 ...we could then use those to formulate language. Start at the bottom. How can people pass and how would we test those. Groups can do it differently. That was the best way that I found. 17:04:42 ...be careful that you don't expand scope into areas that other groups are covering. 17:04:58 ...Note overlap and we can do a standup in our meetings to see how groups are doing and possible overlaps. 17:05:06 ack Rachael 17:05:11 Best practices https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/120#discussioncomment-11854616 17:05:26 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ByDvegN1EpA1rSWXPUAWmX_MGgXJlIgm/edit 17:05:30 Rachael: Best practices Gregg, we are holding a discussion of that next week. Best practices and integrating those. We've also updated WCAG 3 handbook. 17:05:58 Rachael: For this year, on paths, it has recommendations on how to approach. For today, we recommend you have a conversation on who will be the facilitator, and decide when the second meeting will be. 17:06:04 survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Path_Participation_25/results 17:06:18 q+ 17:06:34 Rachael: You have a set of times to work from. We would like you to decide who is primary (and co), and when will the second meeting occur. We will set up the calendar invite. 17:06:48 Rain has joined #ag 17:06:50 ack Ch 17:06:50 Chuck, you wanted to say that our retrospective would be a good time to discuss approaches 17:06:58 ack GreggVan 17:08:04 Chuck: We can discuss approaches at CSUN. Also, some people who filled in the survey late. Please do join the group you were most interested in joining. 17:08:07 Chuck: A few other things. Another opportunity to discuss approach is at CSUN during our retrospective. For those who filled in the survey late, we will update the participation survey. 17:08:08 q+ 17:09:36 Rachael: If you completed the survey late, please stay in the main room when we go to breakouts. 17:09:54 If you don't know what room you are in, please see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ecg9qFIUVCUQfAPgNSEZ8MmsCSjbAynK8hbGBU8NrzQ/edit?gid=912588073#gid=912588073 17:10:22 Scribing has concluded, as we have opened up breakout rooms. 17:20:54 Rachael where are the docs for plain language? 17:26:59 Rachael thanks! 17:27:26 Kimberly has joined #ag 17:28:29 present+ 17:30:18 jtoles2 has joined #ag 17:38:27 Graham has joined #ag 17:38:32 present+ 18:31:20 Glenda has joined #ag 18:40:19 Glenda has joined #ag 18:43:47 kirkwood has joined #ag 18:59:37 Adam_Page has joined #ag 19:28:35 ShawnT has joined #ag