W3C

– DRAFT –
Maturity Model Task Force

01 July 2026

Attendees

Present
Crispy, Dr_Keith, Fazio, janina, JeffAdams-UN, jkline, JXZ, Mark_Miller, Neha, Sheri_B-H, SusiPallero
Regrets
-
Chair
David Fazio
Scribe
Crispy

Meeting minutes

<janina> +1 to a breakout on the LLM use!

Zakim next item

New Business

Continue with GitHub Issues 328 & 334: Abstract & About Section Definitions

JeffAdams-UN: looked at defs for abstract both in and out of scope and introduction notes, sent definitions out to group yesterday. Need to verify that these are the defs that we want, then we will revise the sections, clearing up the issues outlined in GitHub. Redraft and clear issues for next update. Anything to add?

Mark_Miller: Nothing to add, just need a thumbs up to move forward. What's the best process? React to email by set date? Thumbs up?

Fazio: Discuss in this group

Sheri_B-H: Really good but one thing missing, extention section 1.3 - remove dimensions in "what must stay intact", and add dimension wording into "customisable"

Recommended to keep records?

JeffAdams-UN: Should we allow addition of a Disclaimer? Modifications for company specific use?

<Neha> It entirely depend on organization to make customized model public or keep it private

<janina> Proposal #1

<janina> The W3C AAM is extensible, but ceases to be the W3C AAM when an organization

<janina> customizes to its purposes. Therefore, customized applications of the W3C AAM

<janina> should be publically documented in order to assert the organization is using

<janina> the W3C AAM as modified [uri]

janina: If you modify you have to declare that clearly

Sheri_B-H: Clarified it's in the scoping of the MM that we don't go too deep as it's not normative.

<Fazio> Added Janina's verbiage to Github Issue #370

<jkline> A word of caution on the Not Applicable Status Level:

<jkline> The Model Worksheet is a self-assessment meaning the responses are self-reported. There may be times, or users who may select the Not Applicable Status Level for Proof Points that are, in fact, applicable. If selected without solid justification for eliminating those proof points from the assessment may constitute an “Escape” to bolster the

<jkline> assessment score or reduce the overall effort of the initiative. Therefore, careful thought and considerations should be paid to the relevancy of the Proofpoint and risks of eliminating it before this Status Level is selected.

Mark_Miller: Companies could use this as a way to defend an organisation while trying to be accessible but we say it's customisable

Fazio: Maybe we should change that to "extensible"?

Mark_Miller: Backs Sheri's mention of it being a scoping thing

janina: can say it's based on the MM, that's where the fence needs to be positioned.

Sheri_B-H: Hypotheitical PDF files - talk about adding a dimension, what's acceptable modification to what can be exempt, etc.

<Neha> append?

Sheri_B-H: Will come back with some documented thoughts for next week

Fazio: 1.3 to be updated

Mark_Miller: Gaining understanding of work required for next week

Fazio: Progress is happening, thank you all. Hopeful to get a 1.1 version out before TPAC maybe

Fazio: Meeting next week 8th, no meeting week after next 15th, back on 22nd

Fazio: Sheri to attend the Sustainability group

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 248 (Mon Oct 27 20:04:16 2025 UTC).

Diagnostics

All speakers: Fazio, janina, JeffAdams-UN, Mark_Miller, Sheri_B-H

Active on IRC: Crispy, Dr_Keith, Fazio, janina, JeffAdams-UN, jkline, JXZ, Mark_Miller, Neha, Sheri_B-H, SusiPallero