<scribe> scribe: Daniel
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/530
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
<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
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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]