<scribe> scribe: Daniel

CFC rules format 1.1 going to CR

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/530

Input Aspects

Wilco: Had a discussion with Mike, proposed "sources", but he's happy if none of these work

Daniel: If he's happy with what we have I don't think we should take it as substantial

Wilco: It'd be a lot of work to change to "source" now, including renaming the input aspects now

Helen: Doesn't need massive debate

RESOLUTION: Keep input aspects, the TF doesn't think source is any clearer

Editorial suggestions

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/600/files

Daniel: Part of WAI editorial review. For more cohesive and coherent writing style. I think these are just minor copy-edits, we should probably just merge them, if people oppose, speak up and let's discuss

Wilco: Anybody disagree?

Helen: I like the changes, they make this a lot more readable

Wilco: Sounds we're all in agreement

RESOLUTION: Aprove editorial changes

Wilco: Other issues are done, we didn't have a reply from Bruce
... I'll be sending the one-week CFC to the Task Force
... Then AG needs to discuss and approve

Low attendance on ACT TF calls

Helen: Should we discuss this today being a US holiday?

Wilco: Probably not, let's call it today

Helen: Is it worth sending out a reminder message?

Daniel: We should reach out to people individually

Wilco: We should consider running as a Task Force after 1.1 is wrappped up

Shunguo: Sometimes I get confused which meeting is which, and sometimes I am not very sure about the purpose
... Clarity as to whether we are discussing rule issues or format issues is appreciated

Wilco: I am starting to lean that way to. We stopped rule approval, it's a difficult process, it's not working, we should figure out something else

Daniel: We need the Task Force for ACT Rules Format.

Wilco: There is the possibility for a CG report to be adopted by a WG

Daniel: Yes, we'll have to see if our case fits in there

Shunguo: Sometimes there is office hours

Helen: Would an action item be to send it a poll for people to discuss?
... Wrapping up the Task Force, having less TF meeting, or just having one group as a whole where the W3C WG participants can do the final approvals as needed

Daniel: We should discuss in the planning meeting. We should discuss also how it may affect the AG Charter

Wilco: I don't think we need to work more in the format, i doubt there's going to be ACT work in AGWG

Daniel: Not having a Task Force may make things more difficult for coordination efforts as we wouldn't be within AG officially

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/HAd/Had/
Succeeded: s/#diff-4f84b10f4fa5880bac20c3a8b3e31671a67e8bfce9b5d8e67519b1c513f1ed6bR24//
Succeeded: s/e rissues/er issues/
Succeeded: s/dind't/didn't/
Succeeded: s/otday/today/
Succeeded: s/W3C participants/W3C WG participants/
Default Present: Helen, Daniel, todd, Shunguo, Wilco
Present: Helen, Daniel, todd, Shunguo, Wilco
Regrets: Kathy
Found Scribe: Daniel
Inferring ScribeNick: Daniel

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)