14:49:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:49:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/08/25-ag-irc
14:49:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:49:12 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Adam
14:49:14 <Adam> chair: Adam
14:49:17 <Adam> present: Adam
14:49:28 <Adam> agenda?
14:49:30 <Adam> zakim, start meeting
14:49:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:49:32 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Adam
14:49:38 <Adam> chair: Adam
14:49:41 <Adam> present: Adam
14:49:47 <Adam> agenda+ Introductions
14:49:52 <Adam> agenda+ Announcements
14:49:59 <Adam> agenda+ Draft conformance section survey (https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/draft-conformance-section-aug-26/)
14:50:05 <Adam> agenda+ Can flashing requirements account for zoom? (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14AeHLNHxfAIkyuAh4wgR36uSHvQZRLFHo3PkWZhpTK4/edit?usp=sharing)
14:52:33 <Patrick_H_Lauke> Patrick_H_Lauke has joined #ag
14:57:50 <kevin> agenda?
14:57:54 <Charles> Charles has joined #ag
14:57:58 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
14:57:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/25-ag-minutes.html kevin
14:58:15 <kevin> present+
14:58:29 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:59:03 <Dirk> Dirk has joined #ag
14:59:06 <kevin> meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:59:08 <Rachael> present+
14:59:14 <kevin> rrsagent, make minutes
14:59:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/25-ag-minutes.html kevin
14:59:29 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:59:47 <shadi> present+
14:59:54 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
14:59:54 <wendyreid> present+
14:59:58 <Charles> present+
15:00:08 <Helen> Helen has joined #ag
15:00:14 <Dirk> present+
15:00:18 <Helen> Present+
15:00:43 <Patrick_H_Lauke> present+
15:00:44 <AshleeF> AshleeF has joined #ag
15:00:58 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #ag
15:01:12 <bbailey> present+
15:01:30 <Heather> Heather has joined #ag
15:01:35 <Heather> present+
15:01:37 <Ben_Tillyer> Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag
15:01:38 <AshleeF> present+
15:01:40 <Ben_Tillyer> present+
15:01:41 <filippo-zorzi> filippo-zorzi has joined #ag
15:01:49 <Lia> Lia has joined #ag
15:02:13 <CClaire> CClaire has joined #ag
15:02:15 <alastairc> present+
15:02:16 <Lia> present+
15:02:26 <CClaire> present+
15:02:28 <janina1> janina1 has joined #ag
15:02:31 <Adam> zakim, next item
15:02:31 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Introductions -- taken up [from Adam]
15:02:33 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
15:02:37 <Heather> scribe+
15:02:38 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:02:50 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:02:55 <Heather> Adam: Let's get started. Any new introductions?
15:02:56 <Detlev> present+
15:02:58 <Adam> zakim, close item 1
15:02:58 <Zakim> agendum 1, Introductions, closed
15:02:58 <janina1> present+
15:02:59 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:02:59 <Zakim> 2. Announcements [from Adam]
15:03:01 <Adam> zakim, next item
15:03:01 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Adam]
15:03:01 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
15:03:03 <Heather> ...No introductions.
15:03:03 <filippo-zorzi> present+
15:03:04 <AlinaV> AlinaV has joined #ag
15:03:08 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
15:03:09 <jtoles> present+
15:03:12 <giacomo-petri> present+
15:03:15 <AlinaV> present+
15:03:33 <Heather> Kevin: Minor announcement. Has been preparing WCAG 3 for the next draft publication, and sorting out contributors.
15:03:40 <wendyreid> present+
15:03:42 <GreggVan> present+
15:03:52 <Heather> ...Emphasizes the importance to 'present+' in IRC, it helps in sorting out contributors for publication.
15:03:55 <HaTheo3> HaTheo3 has joined #AG
15:03:58 <nattarnoff> nattarnoff has joined #ag
15:04:00 <HaTheo3> present+
15:04:00 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #AG
15:04:07 <BrianE> BrianE has joined #ag
15:04:09 <Bernardo> Bernardo has joined #ag
15:04:10 <Adam> zakim, next item
15:04:10 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Draft conformance section survey (https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/draft-conformance-section-aug-26/) -- taken up [from Adam]
15:04:11 <Matt_King> Matt_King has joined #ag
15:04:14 <Heather> Adam: No other announcements from the co-chairs.
15:04:22 <Makoto_U> Makoto_U has joined #ag
15:04:22 <Matt_King> present+
15:04:27 <Bernardo> present+
15:04:30 <BrianE> present+
15:04:31 <Makoto_U> present+
15:04:32 <kirkwood> present+
15:04:33 <kenneth> present+
15:04:44 <sam-estoesta> sam-estoesta has joined #ag
15:04:48 <Adam> https://www.w3.org/2026/08/11-ag-minutes.html#7df8
15:04:50 <Heather> Adam: A few weeks ago, we made good progress in the conformance discussion when considering incorporating an updated draft of WCAG 2's statement of partial conformance for third-party consent.
15:04:52 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:04:59 <Heather> ...Link to resolution is above. (reads statement)
15:04:59 <ShawnT> present+
15:05:07 <sam-estoesta> present+
15:05:22 <nattarnoff> present+
15:05:48 <Adam> https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/#conformance
15:05:59 <Adam> https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.f5lcmfacosxs
15:06:06 <Heather> ...Based on the resolution and cumulative discussion and surveys, the link to the new revision of the full draft of the WCAG 3 conformance section is linked above.
15:06:17 <Heather> ...Link was provided in a survey from last week.
15:06:35 <Adam> https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370
15:06:43 <Heather> ...Chairs decided to incorporate that survey feedback to have a stronger draft of the text, which will be reviewed today. Link above.
15:06:53 <Stephanie> Stephanie has joined #ag
15:07:15 <Stephanie> present+
15:07:18 <Heather> ...Want to walk through each section surveyed, discuss feedback, make necessary edits/improvements, and then arrive at a resolution to put that version of the text into the editors' draft.
15:07:52 <Heather> ...As we consider each subsection of revised text, a reminder we don't have to be perfect, it just needs to be better, and is more aligned with the current intention.
15:08:14 <Heather> ...Nothing is etched in stone, and would fully empower review and feedback.
15:08:40 <Heather> ...There are 6 total subsections that were surveyed; today will be time boxed for each subsection at 15 minutes each.
15:08:55 <Heather> ...Reminder to keep remarks brief, stay on topic.
15:09:14 <GreggVan> q+
15:09:19 <Matt_King> q+
15:09:19 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:09:22 <Heather> If you're generally in agreement with the spirit and have lingering concerns about wording, we can arrange a follow up meeting for wordsmithing.
15:09:25 <Heather> ...Questions?
15:09:39 <kevin> qq+
15:10:14 <Heather> GreggVan: The conformance document defines keywords "may, must not, shall, should" - are we changing the basic structure of our requirements which have not been imperative?
15:10:15 <Adam> ack kevin
15:10:15 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to GreggVan
15:10:26 <Heather> Adam: No, we are not proposing any changes here. Kevin?
15:10:44 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:10:47 <Heather> Kevin: This content already exists within WCAG 2. It shouldn't be any different than that.
15:11:12 <Heather> Matt_King: Clarification on which tab to review. Am I looking at the third tab?
15:11:22 <JamesH> JamesH has joined #ag
15:11:27 <Adam> https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.p2r7n5x7sm8
15:11:28 <JamesH> present+
15:11:42 <Heather> Adam: Will be looking at the second tab labeled Meeting Draft. Adding another permalink (linked above).
15:12:12 <kevin> q+
15:12:18 <Adam> ack kevin
15:12:20 <Heather> Matt_King: The label Meeting Draft is helpful. Suggests that suggestions are rejected or accepted for readability.
15:12:32 <Heather> Adam: No suggestions remain on the document for today.
15:12:38 <kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/826
15:12:48 <Heather> Kevin: Wendy asked if we can share a GitHub diff.
15:12:50 <GreggVan> q+
15:13:03 <Heather> ...GitHub link shared above.
15:13:32 <alastairc> PReview link for conformance section updates: https://deploy-preview-826--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#conformance
15:13:34 <Heather> Adam: (Talking document access logistics with members)
15:13:38 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:13:46 <kevin> -> https://deploy-preview-826--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#conformance Preview of Conformance section
15:14:04 <Heather> GreggVan: Editors not at the top (reads note). It sounds like that will be in WCAG 3 document itself. I thought the informative guidance were separate documents?
15:14:05 <kevin> -> https://deploy-preview-826--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#progress-towards-and-beyond-conformance Preview of Progress towards and beyond conformance
15:14:26 <Heather> Adam: Great segue. Let's begin with the first section. Opening survey results.
15:14:30 <Atya> Atya has joined #AG
15:14:32 <HaTheo> HaTheo has joined #AG
15:14:44 <HaTheo> present+
15:14:52 <Heather> ...If we look at the content immediately following the conformance developing heading, which is really just the introductory before 3.1
15:15:13 <Heather> ...We saw favorable results here. 14 yes, 2 yes with conditions,
15:15:53 <BrianE> q+
15:15:56 <Heather> ...Suggestions in the comments were incorporated in the text, and Brian you had one suggestion that was a formatting question.
15:16:27 <shadi> q+
15:16:30 <Heather> ...Want a show of hands for Adam to read the text.
15:16:50 <Adam> q?
15:16:51 <Heather> ...Can you restate your question Gregg?
15:16:56 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:17:19 <AWK> present+
15:17:37 <Matt_King> q+
15:17:37 <Heather> GreggVan: The note current reads "WCAG 3 will consist of the following..." and this solves my question, if that's what it is meant to say.
15:17:44 <Adam> ack BrianE
15:17:51 <Heather> Adam: Rachael, can you be the real-time editor to the document?
15:18:11 <Adam> ack shadi
15:18:13 <Heather> Rachael: Yes, I'll put suggestions in as people come up with challenges, and move them as appropriate.
15:18:34 <Adam> q?
15:18:36 <Heather> BrianE: Fourth bullet under the To this end, I don't think that's supposed to be part of the list.
15:18:40 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:19:05 <Heather> Matt_King: If you don't read out loud of where you are, it's hard to know where you are.
15:19:16 <alastairc> q+
15:19:21 <Heather> ...Seems like you're talking about an editor's note?
15:19:40 <Adam> ack alastairc
15:19:45 <Heather> Adam: Thank you for the reminder to orient. I believe this editor's not is the only thing that changed in this subsection that we're considering.
15:20:04 <shadi> q+
15:20:13 <Adam> ack shadi
15:20:19 <Heather> alastairc: On the editor's notes, at this stage of the process, we use these to signal what is and isn't going to be available with WCAG 3. Consider it scene-setting at this stage, and will disappear at a later stage.
15:20:51 <Heather> shadi: An editorial comment that applies to the entire section; don't need to discuss it now. The entire section sometimes mixes descriptive or introductory text...
15:21:27 <Heather> ....It may be difficult to distinguish when there is a requirement, and when it is informative text. Suggest thinking of ways to make this more clear. (Reads example)
15:21:48 <AshleeF> q+ to ask what the blue highlights mean in the google doc Adam is screen sharing
15:21:51 <Heather> Adam: Thank you, that's a good reminder.
15:21:53 <Adam> ack AshleeF
15:21:53 <Zakim> AshleeF, you wanted to ask what the blue highlights mean in the google doc Adam is screen sharing
15:22:01 <Heather> AshleeF: Please explain the blue highlight.
15:22:14 <Adam> q?
15:22:23 <Adam> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3. Conformance (Developing)” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.wzqc9x5okfrp
15:22:24 <Heather> Adam: This is a cosmetic signal that this is the editor's note. Rachael confirmed.
15:22:51 <Heather> Adam: Draft resolution for the section 3 Conformance Developing with the text to the google doc.
15:23:23 <Heather> Matt_King: When you say that, you mean it's nothing after heading 3.1. It's between heading 3 and up to the heading 3.1
15:23:45 <Adam> q?
15:23:45 <Matt_King> q+
15:23:49 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:23:56 <Heather> Adam: Yes, The intention is to correspond to the structure of the survey. Looking at 3, 3.1, 3.2, 4, 4.1, 4.2 and each of those only includes the content leading up to the next subsection.
15:24:01 <Heather> ....any other questions?
15:24:51 <Heather> Matt_King: There's a bullet that is related to talking about explaining compliance that is not appropriate for the conformance section. It uses the word compliance and conformance in the same bullet.
15:25:09 <Heather> ...I'm not sure based on the content that I read priority to that, I understand the explicit meaning of that bullet. I can't seem to find it.
15:25:27 <Rachael> qq+
15:25:37 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:25:37 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to Matt_King
15:25:40 <Heather> Adam: Is it the final bullet? This approach the AG to recommend and support a more flexible model for compliance than is appropriate to define in this conformance section?
15:25:44 <Heather> Matt_King: Yes
15:26:05 <Heather> Rachael: This was part of a discussion we had in review. This is as intended. It is stating that we are going to make an informative document.
15:26:25 <Heather> ...We are taking this approach in order to recommend, or suggest instead of recommend, because recommend may be a weight word...
15:26:42 <Heather> ...but build into WCAG a way for regulators to build compliance with more flexibility. That's what we're attempting to say.
15:27:02 <kirkwood> in same cases it would, depending on legal
15:27:07 <Heather> Matt_King: This could be interpreted by people depending on who they are. Wonder how that's going to be understood.
15:27:27 <bbailey> q+
15:27:31 <Heather> Adam: Will update the draft resolution to accommodate, Tweaks to that language of model for compliance.
15:27:52 <Heather> Matt_King: It's more just making the intent of the bulls more understandable by a broader audience.
15:28:00 <Adam> ack bbailey
15:28:02 <HaTheo> +1 to Matt, while understood it, I think Matt is totally correct it's not clear with a model for compliance is clear.
15:28:12 <Heather> Rachael: I will add comments with actions rather than have to specify and wordsmith each action in the resolution...
15:28:45 <Heather> ...With changes or with actions resolved. Or nothing that actions need to be resolved, something that just leaves us flexibility without having to wordsmith every change.
15:28:46 <kirkwood> +1 to Bruce
15:28:48 <Adam> q?
15:28:52 <Heather> Matt_King: Wonderful.
15:28:57 <Adam> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3. Conformance (Developing)” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.wzqc9x5okfrp — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
15:29:14 <GreggVan> q+
15:29:19 <alastairc> +1
15:29:22 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
15:29:22 <Matt_King> +
15:29:23 <Detlev> +1
15:29:24 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:29:25 <Rachael> +1
15:29:25 <Heather> bbailey: +1 for editorial leeway with our resolutions.There's not difference between conformance and compliance.
15:29:30 <Matt_King> +1
15:29:34 <bbailey> +1
15:29:44 <AWK> @bruce, is it possible that David meant from the gov perspective that integrated WCAG into 508 there isn't a difference?
15:29:57 <Adam> q?
15:30:00 <Heather> Adam: Put up a new draft resolution, we will update the editor's draft conformance section 3 conformance Developing with the text from the google doc.
15:30:02 <Heather> +1
15:30:06 <BrianE> +1
15:30:07 <GreggVan> +1
15:30:08 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:30:09 <AshleeF> +1
15:30:14 <nattarnoff> +1
15:30:15 <ShawnT> +1
15:30:17 <jtoles> +1
15:30:17 <Matt_King> q+
15:30:20 <JamesH> JamesH has joined #ag
15:30:20 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:30:22 <LenB> LenB has joined #ag
15:30:24 <Bernardo> +0
15:30:31 <JamesH> +1
15:30:33 <LenB> present+
15:30:33 <jon_avila> +0 with editiroral changes
15:30:34 <Heather> GreggVan: When talking about conformance and compliance was he talking about WCAG or talking about the complying or conforming to the regulations that the Access Board puts out?
15:30:45 <Rachael> q+ to answer matt
15:30:49 <Heather> bbailey: Fair point, he's talking about Section 508, the Access Board regulation.
15:30:51 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:30:51 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer matt
15:30:53 <Charles> +1
15:30:55 <Helen> Helen has joined #ag
15:31:11 <LenB> +1
15:31:13 <Helen> +1
15:31:16 <kirkwood> shouldn’t this be clearer language in irc? can we vote about a google doc?
15:31:17 <Adam> +1
15:31:20 <kirkwood> q+
15:31:24 <Heather> Matt_King: The bullet that talks about leveling system do these bullets commit us to approving this resolution in this direction that we're actually committed to a leveling system?
15:31:26 <Adam> ack kirkwood
15:31:32 <jon_avila> I agree with Gregg - compliance is to regulations and conformance is to standards - many regulations include technical standard and additional requirements beyond the standard - so meeting the standards alone may not mean you also comply with the regulations.
15:31:51 <Heather> Rachael: We share this as the intended direction that we are, or the direction we are intending to go until we find a good technical reason to not continue in this direction.
15:32:02 <Heather> ...it's our way of communicating to the public.
15:32:04 <HaTheo> +1
15:32:07 <Ben_Tillyer> PR instead then?
15:32:13 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
15:32:17 <julierawe> present+
15:32:32 <Heather> kirkwood: Can we vote around a Google Doc language and not have it directly in IRC minutes? I'm finding it confusing about what we're voting on.
15:32:39 <Adam> q?
15:32:51 <kirkwood> +1
15:32:59 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:33:03 <Heather> Adam: Content that we're reviewing is lengthy, and would not comfortably fit in IRC because of the character limit
15:33:09 <Adam> RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3. Conformance (Developing)” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.wzqc9x5okfrp — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
15:33:22 <Heather> Adam: Votes are in, resolution committed.
15:33:44 <Heather> Adam: Back to the survey, in section 3.1 Interpreting normative provisions. (reads content)
15:34:12 <Heather> ...Focusing on "Yes If" comments (reads comments)
15:34:36 <kirkwood> could we have the survey results link:
15:34:45 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/draft-conformance-section-aug-26/results/
15:35:11 <Heather> ....Believes comment are addressed in the edited text. Encourages commenters to queue in IRC if additional commentary is needed.
15:35:15 <GreggVan> q+
15:36:06 <Rachael> q+ to discuss history of harm
15:36:44 <jon_avila> I agree this list is challenging as we all probably consider different things required or not - we need some sort of framework to help make the determination of what is in an out of core.
15:37:18 <Adam> q?
15:37:20 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:37:22 <jon_avila> Yes, but who determines what is in or out?
15:37:40 <Heather> ...For Ashlee's comments, for #1, we did work carefully to describe hard for our context. For the current point about sign language provisions, I want to say that the work we do here to push this conformance section forward does not preclude us from developing core provisions for sign language.
15:38:07 <alastairc> jon_avila - ultimately it is by consensus, but we've got a pretty good framework from the levels work that Adam did.
15:38:08 <Heather> GreggVan: On the second bullet is conveyed to multiple senses. I think it should say able to be or can be conveyed to multiple senses.
15:38:10 <shawn> shawn has joined #ag
15:38:24 <AshleeF> q+
15:38:26 <Matt_King> q+
15:38:30 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:38:30 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss history of harm
15:39:17 <Heather> ...And under accelerators, says quality checks and checks, we're talking about requirements. Suggest suggest quality requirements. Last, it says best practices do not need to be satisfied, it should say best practices are informative and do not need to be... it's just labeling them informative.
15:39:35 <Adam> ack AshleeF
15:40:01 <Charles> would you include neurological harm as physical?
15:40:02 <Heather> Rachael: Speaking of history of harm. We have had a lot of in-depth of conversations the last 2-3 years. It was hard to draw a line anywhere in the physical harm place.
15:40:26 <Heather> AshleeF: Confused. Are supplemental requirements removed and replaced with accelerators?
15:40:38 <jon_avila> I'm confused as well- I understand the desire to change the name - but this name is confusing.
15:40:49 <GreggVan> q+
15:40:49 <Rachael> q+
15:40:54 <Heather> Adam: Yes, essentially accelerators is the new name from supplemental requirements. Content is roughly the same.
15:40:55 <Ben_Tillyer> -1 to accelerators
15:41:04 <alastairc> The surveyed version is in the first tab, if you want to compare
15:41:12 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:41:12 <Detlev> supplemental to accelerators seems to me an unfortunate renaming
15:41:15 <AWK> -1 to accelerators also
15:41:19 <Heather> AshleeF: Just because the name of it changed, it doesn't really change my feedback if the content underneath that subsection is the same.
15:41:31 <kirkwood> -1 to accelerators
15:41:42 <AshleeF> -1 to accelerators
15:41:54 <Heather> Matt_King: I think I wrote this in a couple of surveys. I struggle with the concept art we continue to divide provisions into these buckets, especially core and accelerator.
15:42:04 <Heather> ...Why Can't those things be baked into the provisions themselves?
15:42:35 <Heather> ...Why can't there be one provision that has different levels and possibly different conditions?
15:42:45 <AshleeF> q+ to quickly clarify my feedback as it relates to this section and conformance
15:43:13 <jon_avila> Today we have examples of sufficient and enhanced in WCAG 2 - we could do similar to have layers.
15:43:41 <Adam> qq+ Rachael
15:43:47 <Heather> ...make the provision a core requirement, and have language within the provision which assists in deciding if that provision applies.
15:43:59 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:43:59 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to Matt_King
15:43:59 <Heather> ...Still very uncomfortable with that general direction.
15:44:09 <Heather> Adam: Rachel to talk about accelerators.
15:44:52 <Adam> ack GreggVan
15:44:53 <kevin> +1 to parking it as a discussion for later
15:44:56 <Heather> Rachael: One of the conversations that this was trying to bring was, is this name correct? Two parts to this: 1) Should we bucket or not? 2) Should we go back to supplemental requirements and take an action or come up with another name to use for this bucket?
15:44:56 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:44:59 <kirkwood> can we start a definition, then work on name?
15:45:32 <Adam> q?
15:45:33 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
15:45:34 <Adam> ack AshleeF
15:45:34 <Zakim> AshleeF, you wanted to quickly clarify my feedback as it relates to this section and conformance
15:45:38 <Heather> GreggVan: We should put the word 'requirements' on there; it should say accelerator requirements if it's a type of requirement. If these are additional requirements, then figure out what the name should be.
15:46:01 <Rachael> q+
15:46:13 <Adam> ack Rachael
15:46:35 <Heather> AshleeF: Regarding the bucket metaphor: We need to sort out provisions and the buckets. We need to do better in WCAG 3 than we did in WCAG 1 and 2 because sign language, we need to make sure that parts of it are core/base level instead of being supplemental.
15:46:53 <kirkwood> do we have a sign language TF?
15:47:09 <alastairc> kirkwood - we have a sub-group
15:47:13 <Matt_King> q?
15:47:22 <Heather> Rachael: Agree we need to do better support for deaf individuals. One option is explore creating a sign language provision that focuses in similar ways to both audio description and other provisions focuses in on when media is the primary version and not alternative content.
15:47:43 <Matt_King> q+
15:47:47 <Adam> ack Matt_King
15:47:50 <AshleeF> I'm in the subgroup by the way, for folks who don't know :)
15:48:06 <alastairc> q+ to respond to Matt
15:48:24 <Heather> ...Could focus it on financial, legal, or other risk factors, and needing sign language. We can have those conversations and discussions, and there is a subgroup for sign language to answer that question. How to shift the requirements themselves and suggest how they become core.
15:49:03 <kevin> Contrast is an example of a requirement with more strict layers
15:49:24 <Adam> ack alastairc
15:49:24 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to Matt
15:49:33 <Heather> Matt_King: Wondering what the quality check of the provision is. Can someone give an example of a provision that says it can't be baked into the core. WCAG could be simpler if there were no buckets.
15:49:59 <Heather> alastairc: There are a few dimensions on this. For some things, like contrast target size, where you're picking a point on a continuum.
15:50:45 <Heather> ...Generally, not for everyone, but generally more contrast would be better. In WCAG 2, we have two levels of that and target size. I think what would happen if we had one bucket for requirements is that we would go through a process of looking what's currently supplemental.
15:51:23 <Adam> q?
15:51:36 <Heather> ...Would need evaluation of core or 'best practice.' There are three buckets of things, two of which are required for conformance. This is a much wider conversation.
15:51:53 <Adam> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3.1 Interpreting normative provisions” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.98u5zx260r0u — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
15:52:05 <Heather> Adam: I think the big question here is around whether and how we define these buckets of provisions. I know there are lingering questions the name of this supplemental bucket.
15:52:25 <Adam> q?
15:52:28 <alastairc> q+
15:52:33 <Adam> ack alastairc
15:52:33 <giacomo-petri> q+
15:52:47 <alastairc> ack me
15:52:49 <Heather> Adam: Draft resolution to update the editors draft conformance section 3.1 interpreting normative provisions with the text from the google doc after resolving associated comments int he google doc.
15:52:50 <Adam> ack giacomo-petri
15:53:21 <Heather> alastairc: Suggestion that we add an editor's note to looking at the levels in the near future.
15:53:27 <alastairc> q+
15:53:36 <Adam> ack alastairc
15:53:53 <Adam> q?
15:53:56 <Heather> giacomo-petri: I don't see in the comments a placeholder for supplemental requirements. We need to add that wording before the draft is published.
15:53:59 <Adam> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3.1 Interpreting normative provisions” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.98u5zx260r0u — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
15:54:08 <GreggVan> +1
15:54:08 <alastairc> +1
15:54:09 <Matt_King> +0
15:54:11 <bbailey> +1
15:54:12 <graham> graham has joined #ag
15:54:12 <HaTheo> +1
15:54:15 <JamesH> +1
15:54:15 <Ben_Tillyer> 0
15:54:15 <graham> present+
15:54:16 <Detlev> +1
15:54:17 <filippo-zorzi> +1
15:54:18 <BrianE> +1
15:54:19 <ShawnT> +1
15:54:19 <AshleeF> +0
15:54:21 <kirkwood> +1
15:54:23 <nattarnoff> +0
15:54:23 <Heather> alastairc: We'd like to minimize change to the public. Suggest for this draft we keep it as supplemental. This is part of the levels conversation.
15:54:25 <Heather> +1
15:54:28 <Makoto_U> ;1
15:54:33 <Makoto_U> +1
15:54:53 <Rachael> +1
15:54:57 <Charles> 0 (need to see any edit to ‘immediate physical harm’)
15:55:00 <bbailey> q+
15:55:02 <Bernardo> +1
15:55:02 <Heather> Adam: Break for the top of the hour.
15:55:14 <bbailey> q-
15:55:18 <Adam> RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3.1 Interpreting normative provisions” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.98u5zx260r0u — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
15:55:39 <Atya> +1
15:56:01 <Heather> scribe-
15:56:04 <jon_avila> Glad there is no ticking.
16:01:29 <Adam> zakim, choose a scribe
16:01:29 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Matt_King
16:01:40 <Adam> zakim, choose a scribe
16:01:40 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Makoto_U
16:01:51 <Adam> zakim, choose a scribe
16:01:51 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose HaTheo
16:01:59 <Adam> zakim, choose a scribe
16:01:59 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Heather
16:02:02 <Adam> zakim, choose a scribe
16:02:02 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Lia
16:03:01 <HaTheo> HaTheo has joined #AG
16:03:17 <kevin> scribe+ Lia
16:03:29 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/draft-conformance-section-aug-26/results/#xq4
16:04:17 <kevin> scribe+
16:04:28 <kevin> Adam: [Reading out survey results]
16:04:38 <Bernardo> Lia is restarting her PC
16:04:50 <alastairc> scribe+
16:04:57 <alastairc> adam: reads from the survey results
16:05:05 <alastairc> scribe-
16:06:26 <GreggVan> q+
16:06:54 <kirkwood__> kirkwood__ has joined #ag
16:07:19 <Lia> scribe+
16:07:28 <Matt_King> q?
16:07:35 <Matt_King> q+
16:07:49 <Adam> q?
16:07:51 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:08:51 <Lia> GreggVan: in the progress towards conformance, we talk about levels, and progress towards is below conformance level, and that can be confusing. Silver is above but is a level of confrmance
16:09:14 <Rachael> q+ to explain levels
16:10:36 <Lia> GreggVan: do we also need to mention what was not included? I would suggest we include in where it says "the boundaries of evaluation" and the other place is "level of specificity"
16:11:29 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:11:29 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to explain levels
16:11:31 <Lia> Adam: we can make this more clear, for levels, those are levels for reporting not conformance and I'll add comments in the google doc to represent that
16:12:02 <Lia> Rachael: this is proposing the concept that conformance is a single level and you can report levels below and above
16:12:06 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:12:35 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:13:51 <Lia> Matt_King: I love the simplicity of the first part where conformance covers all core requirements, when we go to 3.2, it's confusing to say a conformance claim is not required
16:15:06 <Rachael> q+
16:15:11 <Lia> ...what is conformance scope doing and if you say something conform you need to say how much, and it feels complicated
16:15:35 <Adam> ack giacomo-petri
16:15:37 <Lia> Matt_King: I am concerned this is mixing needs of reporting and technical conformance
16:16:40 <GreggVan> q+
16:17:11 <Lia> giacomo-petri: the boundaries of evaluation let policymakers decide, if a big product claims conformance, do they need to list everything that wasn't evaluated? sometimes it's not reasonable to test the entire product
16:17:15 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:17:21 <shadi> +1 to giacomo-petri
16:17:35 <Lia> Rachael: is the additions Gregg made counter to your intent?
16:17:47 <giacomo-petri> yes, the addition will jeopardize my effort
16:17:49 <kirkwood>  that’s a legal business decision. we are a tech standard
16:17:53 <Lia> Rachael: we can further clarify reporting and conformance
16:17:56 <Adam> q?
16:18:00 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:18:18 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:19:17 <Lia> GreggVan: claiming conformance has nothing to do with testing, but reporting; to make a claim a website conforms doesn't say if the website is usable and what's accessible
16:19:43 <Adam> ack giacomo-petri
16:19:59 <kevin> q+
16:20:02 <Lia> Lia has joined #ag
16:20:10 <Lia> scribe+
16:20:29 <Lia> giacomo-petri; you have to test your product in order to claim conformance
16:20:49 <Adam> s/giacomo-petri;/giacomo-petri:/
16:20:50 <Lia> ...if you can claim your product is accessible because you can't be 100% it's also not helpful for users
16:20:54 <Adam> q?
16:20:57 <Adam> ack kevin
16:21:03 <kirkwood> zthese are legal questions
16:21:06 <HaTheo> HaTheo has joined #AG
16:21:14 <shadi> q+
16:21:33 <Lia> kevin: the conformance claim only relates to what's been assessed against the technical standard
16:22:08 <giacomo-petri> +1 to Kevin
16:22:10 <Lia> ...it's reasonable to say what was the scope of the report and what conformance level was achieved
16:22:11 <Ben_Tillyer> +1 to kevin
16:22:20 <Adam> +1 to kevin
16:22:28 <HaTheo> +1 to Giacomo and Kevin. If I say that the booking is accessible, it doesn’t necessarily mean that everything on the website will be interpreted as compliant.
16:22:30 <Adam> ack shadi
16:22:39 <Lia> ...if you haven't tested/not in tested scope, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't conform
16:23:13 <Matt_King> q+
16:23:20 <GreggVan> q+
16:23:28 <Lia> shadi: if you define the scope as a component, or a page you can not leave anything out, it needs to include everything in the defined scope, you can't make statements around anything outside that scope
16:23:29 <kirkwood> present+
16:23:46 <HaTheo> s/compliant/conformant
16:23:46 <kirkwood> we give the specs for an accessible elevator
16:24:08 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:24:15 <Lia> Adam: reminder to avoid analogies
16:24:25 <Rachael> q+ for suggested text
16:25:13 <Lia> Matt_King: 3.2.2 talks about defining scope, can this part be removed or remove mentions of claims in this part
16:25:23 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:26:31 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:26:32 <Lia> GreggVan: I'm removing my suggestions, as I know it seems to be the consensus not to include exclusions
16:26:36 <alastairc> I'd say not require exclusions, but we could include advice for regulators...
16:26:47 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
16:26:48 <LoriO> LoriO has joined #ag
16:26:59 <LoriO> present+
16:27:01 <Matt_King> +1 to greg: move claim language to plicy guidance
16:27:18 <Detlev> q+
16:27:22 <Rachael> suggested alternative: "...also identify the boundaries of the evaluation. Within the stated scope, everything must be included. When possible, also describe what is outside of the scope."
16:27:26 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:27:26 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss suggested text
16:28:07 <Lia> Rachael: scope is covered without required exclusions
16:28:20 <bbailey> +1 to what Rachael read
16:28:26 <Adam> ack Ben_Tillyer
16:28:28 <Lia> ...we need 3.2.2 because it covers how to make an ACR, we can take an action for a deeper discussion later
16:28:30 <kirkwood> so a conformance claim can be made to a particular scope?
16:29:49 <kirkwood> accessible alternative problem comes up again?
16:29:56 <Lia> Ben_Tillyer: it would be more clear to regulators if someone describes scope as website components, it doesn't mean the entire site. Could the conformance claim mention if the scope is a complete set and how it's defined so you can't claim the entire flow is accessible
16:29:59 <Adam> ack Detlev
16:30:02 <kirkwood> q+
16:30:07 <GlendaSims> GlendaSims has joined #ag
16:30:14 <GlendaSims> present+
16:30:57 <Adam> Link to latest text of 3.2 section being discussed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.8t9jhdlhynwm
16:31:07 <Adam> ack kirkwood
16:31:08 <Lia> Detlev: if you set the scope to a specific part, you still have to cover all requirements. How do we cover that everything included can be tested?
16:32:12 <Lia> kirkwood: it reminds me of accessible alternatives, where you could have an alternative that was accessible but sometimes it does not provide the same information
16:32:15 <Adam> q?
16:32:20 <kevin> This is only about scoping what conformance is claimed for
16:32:45 <Adam> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3.2 Conformance requirements” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.8t9jhdlhynwm — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
16:33:01 <GreggVan> +1
16:33:02 <Rachael> q+
16:33:02 <Heather> +1
16:33:05 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:33:16 <HaTheo> +1
16:33:39 <kirkwood> -1
16:33:41 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:33:43 <Lia> Rachael: responding to John's statement: as written, we allow people to define the scope as smaller than a site
16:33:44 <Adam> ack giacomo-petri
16:34:09 <Rachael> q+ to address John's comment chair hat off
16:34:22 <Matt_King> q+
16:34:24 <kevin> +1 to giacomo-petri
16:34:28 <Adam> +1 to giacomo-petri
16:34:28 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:34:29 <Lia> giacomo-petri: nobody would assume the entire site is accessible if claiming conformance to just a component, scoping conformance doesn't prevent people from understanding conformance
16:34:30 <HaTheo> +1000 to Giacomo, I really don't understand the worry of stopped conformance.
16:34:38 <Matt_King> +1 to Jacomo
16:34:44 <Rachael> +1 giacomo
16:35:16 <Lia> ...if a product is a chat widget, it might be part of a bigger product, but you only claim conformance for your scope
16:35:18 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:35:18 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to address John's comment chair hat off
16:36:16 <Lia> Rachael: what we have now allows claiming conformance to what's in scope, rather than allowing sampling to claim conformance to something larger
16:36:17 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:36:17 <kirkwood> dpends how we bound claim
16:36:29 <HaTheo> s/stopped/scoped
16:36:31 <Matt_King> 3.2: For a unit of content to conform to WCAG 3.0, all core requirements must be satisfied.
16:36:48 <Detlev> giacomo: my point was not that you should not be allowed to claim conformance, just ensuring that you can theoretically account for the rest, e.g. by demonstrating that the component can be integrated in a way that all requirements are met.
16:36:53 <Ben_Tillyer> q-
16:37:09 <alastairc> kirkwood - so the conformance section would be pretty quiet on how much should be included in a claim scope, but policy guidance could outline how much should be included in general.
16:37:24 <Adam> q?
16:37:25 <Lia> Matt_King: 3.2.2 feels like it's just about reporting, and we should separate the opening statement so that the language isn't the same
16:37:49 <Adam> q?
16:37:57 <giacomo-petri> q+
16:38:00 <Adam> ack giacomo-petri
16:38:15 <Rachael> -1 to "unit of content"
16:38:37 <alastairc> "For a specified conformance scope..."?
16:38:44 <kirkwood> if you have an inaccessible model in your distin library. if it is used in 1 of 50 pages is the site compliant?
16:38:45 <Lia> giacomo-petri: the intent of unit of content and conformance scope is similar, we need to define what is a unit of content (it could be a paragraph, list item, page), we need a definition
16:38:47 <Rachael> +1 to giacomo. The previous phrase was defined by the later section.
16:38:56 <kirkwood> q+
16:39:00 <Ben_Tillyer> q+
16:39:03 <Adam> ack kirkwood
16:39:57 <Adam> ack Ben_Tillyer
16:40:13 <Matt_King> q+
16:40:37 <alastairc> q+ to reply to kirkwood on how a survey modal on 1 in 50 pages would be included
16:41:09 <Lia> Ben_Tillyer: I'm in support of scope, some accessibility consultancy require a full scope when sometimes only one part of the page has been changed and they are not willing to test just one part
16:41:38 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:41:42 <Lia> ...if you can scope component/partial scope conformance, you would have a much more up to date conformance claim
16:42:54 <Lia> Matt_King: I had a very specific definition of unit of content, and we already defined paths, process, task flow. Products can decide what's the best unit of reporting, claiming is just another form of reporting
16:43:11 <kirkwood> defining scoping mechanism would be needed.
16:43:12 <Adam> q?
16:43:14 <Adam> ack alastairc
16:43:14 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to reply to kirkwood on how a survey modal on 1 in 50 pages would be included
16:43:16 <kirkwood> modal?
16:43:24 <Rachael> q+ to add action to consider overlap between this section and reporting in the future
16:44:36 <kirkwood> agreed, but soes that work with what we are proposing?
16:44:47 <kirkwood> soes/does
16:44:57 <Lia> alastairc: if you are auditing a modal and you have multiple pages, it would depend on how you are implementing the modal - if you are just scoping the modal, you report on that. In the informative advice we could add a principle to watch out for really small scope and isolated components
16:44:58 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:44:58 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to add action to consider overlap between this section and reporting in the future
16:45:26 <Adam> q?
16:45:38 <alastairc> kirkwood - yes, I think so.
16:45:44 <Adam> DRAFT RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3.2 Conformance requirements” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.8t9jhdlhynwm — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
16:45:54 <GreggVan> +1
16:45:57 <Heather> +1
16:46:00 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
16:46:02 <HaTheo> +1
16:46:03 <alastairc> +1
16:46:03 <JamesH> +1
16:46:05 <bbailey> +1
16:46:07 <AshleeF> +1
16:46:14 <ShawnT> +1
16:46:15 <Rachael> +1
16:46:16 <Makoto_U> +1
16:46:18 <LoriO> +1
16:46:21 <Bernardo> +1
16:46:29 <Charles> +1
16:46:31 <Matt_King> +1
16:46:34 <Helen> Helen has joined #ag
16:46:39 <Detlev> +1
16:46:41 <LenB> +1
16:46:43 <Helen> +1
16:46:54 <filippo-zorzi> +1
16:47:08 <kirkwood> +1
16:47:24 <Adam> RESOLUTION: We will update the editor’s draft conformance section “3.2 Conformance requirements” with the text from https://docs.google.com/document/d/113dN3CS0NVQxdSRIYlaBaR5pPb2j6iXIdgvwKtYGgbA/edit?tab=t.lzu3wez5w370#heading=h.8t9jhdlhynwm — after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
16:48:25 <Lia> Rachael: can we put 4 as exploratory so we can move forwards?
16:48:43 <GreggVan> q+
16:48:51 <Matt_King> q+
16:48:54 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:48:57 <Lia> Adam: votes were generally favorable
16:49:02 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/draft-conformance-section-aug-26/results/#xq5
16:49:05 <Rachael> q+
16:49:12 <Adam> qq+ Rachael
16:49:23 <Lia> GreggVan: are we puittng this inside WCAG3? I thought this would be a separate document
16:49:24 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:49:24 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to GreggVan
16:49:29 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:49:59 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:50:03 <Lia> Rachael: the intent is to have something in this document to explain tags, we can put it in explainer
16:50:08 <GreggVan> q+
16:50:45 <Lia> Matt_King: I feel like this is to raw to be in editors draft
16:50:46 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:51:00 <alastairc> For those newer to the group, it's useful to understand the "maturity levels" for our content: https://www.w3.org/TR/2026/DNOTE-wcag-3.0-explainer-20260226/#current-process
16:51:35 <Lia> GreggVan: we have levels below/above conformance, if we decided we can't conform to anything but 3, we need to make a big announcement we are abandoning levels and we will have only one level now
16:52:38 <kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
16:52:39 <Adam> q?
16:52:43 <Lia> Adam: that's the intention and we tried to clarify saying "levels of reporting" and it's a mental model shift
16:52:58 <Adam> q?
16:53:12 <Lia> Rachael: we can add this as potential action
16:53:24 <Matt_King> q+
16:53:30 <bbailey> q+
16:53:56 <alastairc> q+ to answer kirkwood
16:54:00 <Lia> kirkwood: are we ok having this not adopted in regulation?
16:54:01 <Adam> ack alastairc
16:54:01 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer kirkwood
16:54:17 <HaTheo> HaTheo has joined #AG
16:54:22 <AshleeF> +1 to the idea of putting section 4 into a separate GitHub PR (I believe that's a suggestion I heard)
16:54:28 <Adam> q?
16:54:29 <Lia> alastairc: the reporting bit would be optional for regulators
16:54:31 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:55:22 <Rachael> q+ to answer Matt
16:55:29 <Adam> ack bbailey
16:55:33 <AshleeF> +1 to Matt_King I also find async discussions are easier in GitHub PRs
16:55:51 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:55:51 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Matt
16:55:56 <Lia> bbailey: there are a lot of synonums we can use instead of levels
16:55:59 <kirkwood> this would be more of a ‘procedure’ rather than a policy. which can be v useful
16:56:11 <GreggVan> q+
16:56:17 <Adam> ack GreggVan
16:56:19 <alastairc> We have people in both directions, some prefer docs and can't use github PRs, and vice versa.
16:56:23 <Lia> Rachael: we will move this into a PR but often we are also using the google doc
16:57:37 <Matt_King> q+
16:57:52 <Adam> ack Matt_King
16:57:53 <Lia> GreggVan: there are no measures in between the reporting levels, and it's defeating what progress against conformance needs to do
16:58:16 <Adam> q?
16:58:49 <Charles> Charles has left #ag
16:58:50 <bbailey> q+
16:58:50 <AshleeF> Will the PR be emailed out?
16:58:54 <Adam> ack bbailey
16:59:16 <Rachael> q+
16:59:27 <Adam> ack Rachael
16:59:34 <Lia> Adam: we did go through all the responses but decided to move forward asynchronous
17:00:13 <Adam> DRAFT RESOLUTION: we support incorporating section 4 as exploratory, after resolving associated comments in Google Doc
17:00:16 <Ben_Tillyer> +1
17:00:17 <GreggVan> -1
17:00:17 <shadi> +1
17:00:18 <AshleeF> -1
17:00:21 <Heather> +1
17:00:22 <HaTheo> +1
17:00:23 <Matt_King> -1
17:00:23 <Rachael> +1
17:00:25 <bbailey> +1
17:00:30 <Detlev> 0
17:00:38 <kirkwood> 0
17:00:41 <CClaire> 0
17:00:45 <Dirk> +1
17:00:51 <LoriO> +1
17:00:53 <Makoto_U> +1
17:00:55 <Atya> +1
17:00:57 <AshleeF> I thought the suggestion was to create a PR for discussion section 4? That's why I voted -1
17:01:04 <Detlev> too little time to think this through...
17:01:12 <Helen> Helen has joined #ag
17:01:21 <AshleeF> AshleeF has left #ag
17:01:21 <Helen> +1
17:01:27 <julierawe> Thanks everyone
17:01:29 <LenB> +1
17:01:54 <LenB> LenB has left #ag
17:02:03 <giacomo-petri> present+
17:02:19 <Adam> zakim, end meeting
17:02:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Adam, kevin, Rachael, shadi, wendyreid, Charles, Dirk, Helen, Patrick_H_Lauke, bbailey, Heather, AshleeF, Ben_Tillyer, alastairc, Lia,
17:02:21 <bbailey> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/25-ag-minutes.html bbailey
17:02:25 <Zakim> ... CClaire, Jennie_Delisi, Detlev, janina, filippo-zorzi, jtoles, giacomo-petri, AlinaV, GreggVan, HaTheo, Matt_King, Bernardo, BrianE, Makoto_U, kirkwood, kenneth, ShawnT,
17:02:25 <Zakim> ... sam-estoesta, nattarnoff, Stephanie, JamesH, AWK, LenB, julierawe, graham, LoriO, GlendaSims
17:02:25 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/08/25-ag-minutes.html Zakim
17:02:28 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Adam; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:02:30 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ag
17:57:44 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
18:53:23 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:01:28 <Tamsin> Tamsin has joined #ag
20:01:59 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag