Meeting minutes
New Business
<CharlesL> Please access Zoom via the link below:
<CharlesL> https://
Charles: the recurring link meeting invite, where it was accessed via a link below, and MM info - the link is incorrect and goes to a file not found.
Janina: we need to tell Roy. FWD taht error to APA chair, and Roy needs to see it
<Fazio> ICCHP:https://
Fazio: sponsoring international conference for people with disabilities in europe - impact of a11y on mental health. Link provided. Anything that might apply, submit. I'm chairing and take a look. Don't worry if you think it doesn't quite fit. Check it out.
Fazio: Charles - you were going to make edits to the redundant text? Have you been able to get to it?
Charles: Yes, pull request same day for you to review.
Fazio: I don't see it anymore. Checking...
Janina: only see 366 typo in pull requests
Fazio: issue number 358
Fazio: Ok I see it. Doesn't let me merge it. Letting me approve but not merge.
Janina: not showing in list of PRs. Need to look more. Can't answer quickly what state it's in.
Fazio: will contact Roy about 358 and the other one before starting the call. Thanks Charles!
Spreadsheet Review
Jeff: Will send this out to everyone.
Fazio: want to start with the one from dec 10?
Jeff: yes
Jeff: [Fazio is screen sharing the spreadsheet] What I did, in the one that's published, prrof point category was on C column instead of A column. Moved it over to the left so screen eaders, seeing everything left to right. Main headings mapped to main headings in document. Maintained same number and info underneath it and track across to actual
proof point.
Janina: you're following the order in the document and having the columns follow the order. i like that
Jeff: proof points were in a different order, so used the doc to map them in the tool.
Janina: published narrative doc is source of truth here?
Jeff: yes. Absolutely. Things that were missing, so I went through and aligned to the doc, order and make sure things weren't missing. But in the ICT development tab, there were two things that were not correct on line 54 - one quality review thru release that wasn't in the document. I think we need to pull it out of the spreadsheet for now. The
other one said ICT dev training proof point doesn't match doc description. So i went and corrected that. The two on that tab that need to be corrected in the assessment tool.
Janina: you made that correct here?
Jeff: I wanted you to see them first
fazio: we did our best to go through...but probably things we missed. Let's do that now. What do we need to decide to keep?
Jeff: line 55 let's delete.
Jeff: the proof points under those are bullets in the document...in black in the main field, that's the main category. I was repeating that on each line. So they have all the reference info for proof points. 3.2.2.2 is category and proof points are under them, unnumbered. We'd have to go back and number in the doc as well. Might not be a bad idea.
But not now.
Jeff: line 55, let's delete.
Fazio: ok
Jeff: now this one you can change the field for columns A and B into Black. (talking formatting of visuals...)
Jeff: let's double check the rest of the tabs. Knowledge and skills - double check no changes there...Oversight and culture tab...(looking for red) Personnel has two lines on recrutiing. There are two that weren't in the document on line 20, and line 23 slated for deletion in spreadsheet. So delete lines 20 and 23.
Charles: at top, number of proof points is incorrect now. 13 should be 11.
… formula needs to be fixed
Fazio: will email to public list after call. And when formula/edits ready let me know
Fazio: any questions or comments so far?
Jeff: all cleaned up now. Other problem, when someone clicks on status and goes into level, the colors aren't coming through. When pick the field status from dropdown the color doesn't change like in the past.
Charles: i'll go and fix. It's conditional formatting.
Charles: status level doesn't need to be super wide? And justification should be larger, but if low vision if you zoom in like 120 and scroll, you don't see the outcomes and proof points. We're only having column A as fixed. So won't see actual proof points. It makes sense logically to here column A first, but go to next column to start justifying,
could lose column B. that's the only issue with that.
Jeff: any ideas on how to fix that?
[Mark asked for a demo on that to see the issue]
Charles: you have to remember what the description is for each of them. Could freeze column B but then there's only so much room to work in.
Jeff: column B narrower and wrap it? Longer worksheet but would have more room?
Mark: outcome we're looking for is to read outcome and proof points while they're writing their justification.
fazio: I don't think that should hold us up..
Janina: when done designing I want to talk next steps
Mark: one, interesting if someone knew best practice to meet guidelines and second, I'm not sure this is possible, give the user the choice in functionality to freeze and unfreeze columns.
Charles: they can.
Jeff: once those changes are in this should replace the old doc
Fazio: i'll send to the list and charles will fix/ and we'll get it in place.
Jeff: I'm working on a separate doc, a spreadsheet that's a copy of assessment tool that has a little but of a definition of what should occur at each maturity level at each proof point. Not sure what I want to do with them, Would love to show, sent it to charles. Can you bring that up?
Charles: when I went to my PR, changes got lost so have to find that email.
Janina: if we've got a separate topic. Ultimate outcome is once we've agreed we're aligned, need to make that available via W3C. This new proposal, we need to look at it at the right time. talk with David for the agenda.
charles: agree Janina. Future work. (Jeff's new work) Wouldn't be part of the excel spreadsheet, but benefit for the next web version where you can have tooltips and more turbo tax style.
Jeff: or a supplemental reference doc.
Janina: this is a different topic than what's in the agenda. david in charge for when we add it
Fazio: let's get these issues done first and then version 1.2
Fazio: charles will do some updates, get spreadsheet up...
Github Issue #348 Oversight missing (addresses #226, #303)
<Fazio> w3c/
<gb> Issue 348 Oversight missing (by iadawn)
Fazio: good news, covers 303 and 226. Wer'e on 348 right now...Neha grouped together for us. This issue has links to 303 and 226.
Fazio: oversight and governance or just governance? Woudl more people relate to governance?
Sheri: I thought we made that decision before 1.0? And governance was a good catchall term?
Charles: i think no one was assigned so it didn't get done
Janina: Mark - was thinking you had this in the notebook LM, would be a good query on when we talked about that
… we don't need an answer right now, running out of time
… can start 1.1 with that change if we agree and it was erratta we didn't do.
Mark: June 4, 2025
Mark: from October.
Janina: bottom line we agreed to do this
Mark: The transition to the specific term "Governance" was solidified during the October 8, 2025, meeting. This discussion was prompted by new GitHub issues (#341 and #348) regarding missing governance and policy dimensions.
<janina> Global access to MM minutes: https://