17:52:10 RRSAgent has joined #aria-editors 17:52:14 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/12/10-aria-editors-irc 17:52:42 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/6158f112-9665-46ec-bfa3-928483afbcf4/20251210T100000/ 17:52:43 clear agenda 17:52:43 agenda+ aria-in-html and using-aria WDs -> aria#2694 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2694 18:00:01 zakim, start meeting 18:00:01 RRSAgent, make logs Public 18:00:02 Meeting: ARIA Editors 18:02:42 spectranaut_ has joined #aria-editors 18:03:55 present+ 18:03:59 pkra has joined #aria-editors 18:04:00 agenda? 18:04:02 scribe+ 18:04:24 zakim, next item 18:04:24 agendum 1 -- aria-in-html and using-aria WDs -> aria#2694 https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/2694 -- taken up [from agendabot] 18:04:43 Daniel: this has been lurking around for a while. 18:05:01 ... we're redirecting this according to the original ask. 18:05:06 ... but we want to change that. 18:05:15 ... to match where the work is happening now. 18:05:34 ... but this was before my time so I'm not sure why it's the way it is. 18:06:15 scotto: IIRC the original github was set up this way. Then Steve forked it to a separate thing. But somehow both were continued. 18:06:21 ... so it stayed messy 18:06:28 Daniel: Right. So let's fix it. 18:06:38 ... the old aria-in-html seems unmaintained. 18:07:04 ... and the other one might be picked up. 18:07:14 jamesn: who will pick it up? 18:07:23 Daniel: It's not in our charter right now. 18:07:33 jamesn: do we want it? 18:07:41 Daniel: I suppose that's the question. 18:08:16 jamesn: if we take it on, then having this content in this document seems incongruent to other things. 18:08:51 Daniel: a requirement analysis might be useful. A lot of it might belong in Practices 18:09:09 jamesn: I agree. A lot of duplication. 18:09:58 Daniel: right. I'll check with Matt how he feels about some things moving to practices 18:10:19 jamesn: I'm not sure the strong opinions in there always fit well with ARIA. We know too much about nuances and exceptions. 18:11:01 Daniel: ok. I think I could do a bit of the moving. 18:11:09 ... and follow up. 18:11:23 zakim, next item 18:11:23 I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, pkra 18:12:25 topic: using resolutions more often 18:12:56 spectranaut_: this was a suggestion from Chris. 18:13:21 jamesn: could we use a label instead? It seems less efficient. 18:13:52 spectranaut_: I pointed out that many times issues need research. So a lot of resolutions can only happen later. 18:14:13 ... but I find myself wondering what the status of particular issues is. Reading minutes etc. is time consuming. 18:14:26 q+ 18:14:30 ... so I'm wondering if it's worth noting even just that we need more research. 18:14:54 jamesn: right. I'm not against it. I'm just not sure where it fits and where it doesn't. 18:15:08 Daniel: I also had this from others. 18:15:20 ... it helps with transparency 18:15:41 ... we'd need to decide which steps of our process would need resolutions. 18:16:24 spectranaut_: resolutions could be scraped from minutes, right? 18:16:38 Daniel: I think that would require some more work but we can look into it. 18:17:13 scotto: example from openUI https://github.com/openui/open-ui/issues/1303 18:17:17 ... uses the CSS meeting bot. 18:17:26 spectranaut_: right. we talked about that bot. 18:17:30 ... it would be nice 18:17:38 ... would require linking the issues correctly. 18:18:23 scotto: right. This way, it's automatic and easy to find them again in the issues. 18:18:54 Daniel: the problem with the CSS bot is that they don't work with zakim, esp. agenda. 18:19:12 jamesn: right, I had filed an issue. Maybe we should just fix it. 18:19:25 scotto: I think open UI uses agendas and CSS Bot. 18:19:41 Daniel: they might use topics and not zakim? 18:19:54 scott: right. I'm not sure. 18:20:08 ... but it is very nice and simplifies things. 18:20:31 jamesn: we should be able to find it from their full minutes 18:21:54 ... they use github bot to move through things. 18:22:30 https://www.w3.org/2025/03/20-openui-irc 18:23:28 spectranaut_: they use zakim, too. Just for queue though. 18:23:54 jamesn: I do like zakim's agenda features though. 18:24:20 jamesn has joined #aria-editors 18:25:00 spectranaut_: we'd have to set the topic, then github-bot takes it up? 18:25:09 jamesn: seems like you have to tell it. 18:25:20 ... but you can do that anytime 18:26:04 spectranaut_: triage is a difficult though. 18:26:12 jamesn: but we shouldn't talk to much there anyway? 18:26:50 ... perhaps we should try to do this except for triage issues 18:27:01 spectranaut_: we could do it manually. 18:27:14 jamesn: but it might create too much spam, e.g. when the relevant person isn't in the meeting 18:27:24 ... I think it's worth trying though. 18:27:32 ... or fix the agenda problem with CSS Bot. 18:28:09 https://github.com/dbaron/wgmeeting-github-ircbot/issues/69 18:33:02 present+ 18:33:03 zakim, end meeting 18:33:03 As of this point the attendees have been Daniel, pkra 18:33:04 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 18:33:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/10-aria-editors-minutes.html Zakim 18:33:12 I am happy to have been of service, pkra; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 18:33:13 Zakim has left #aria-editors