<scribe> scribe: jamesn

Introductions (not scribed)

Meeting length and project management

MK: personally I would like to discuss the idea of optimizing the value of the time people are contributing we have more targetted agendas planned in advance by the group and perhaps consider not meeting every week - depending on the status of what people are working on

not all of the work has to be done in a meeting - but some is more fruitful with a discussion

<jemma_> +1

would be helpful at this point in time to make sure that people don't spend any more time on the phone than necessary

reviewing other peoples text and code etc.

<jemma_> +1 for one hour meeting instead of one and half hour meeting.

JN: getting meeting down to 1 hour , a 30 min editors meeting weekly - and then only meet when necessary

MK: in terms of managing the project - what I would like to be able to do - in the next week or 2 weeks

look at the issues later in the week - can see if anything has come up that is a roadblock for agenda discussion. Default cadence is every other week - unless there is a roadblock where asynchronous review isn't going well and need hellp from the group

MK: can either functionally review - with JAWS/NVDA etc. read text and feedback when not clear etc. There should be a way for everyone to contribute.Instead of trhe meeting they would use the hour to updayte iossues etc.
... that would be my hope

JK: weekly meetings give deadlines

MK: deadline could still be there - but you don't always have to call in
... in the weeks without a meeting - there will still be an agenda of items which need review etc.
... if you have comitted to doing something need a comment in the assigned issue
... will always be an agenda but not always a call
... 1 hour weekly call
... unless the agenda says offline meeting cancelled

https://gitter.im/w3c/a11ySlackers

JN: would be 1 extra thing to check unless a critical mass of people use it

https://gitter.im/w3c/aria-practices

Review example development status page https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/Design-Patterns-Status

MK: goal was for 99% of WIP table to have an issue everywhere

was thinking of deleting the 1st column and having 2 columns only

MK: would like to talkk abnout how we work through a design pattern - and how we work through issues. need to make sure 1 issue for drafting the pattern and 1 for deving the example

my questions are how we want to manage the issues... i noted that the tabs one - you had issue #20 which was assigned for developing the implementatioon but then created #114 for a review of #20 as opposed to adding it to #20

MB: not sure what the best way is... this is when we transitioned to the new repos... just staRTED logging a bunch of iossues... I think it is a bit too granular but allows to assign the reviewing to someone else

MK: there are some people who will be most productive in reviewing and others most productive in coding.
... was wondering if we have a master issue and a seperate for functional and editorial review... where to put code review?
... also not enough people to do that too
... if we had some code review people, could have a seperate code review issue for the example and could be assigned to them

if you write or dev an example, provide a link to the review issue... please provide feedback at this issue

MB: another possible is have 1 issue for the review process and have a list with checkboxes and have code review etc. checkboxes... so we don't end up with a gazillion issues

MK: if person wants feedback from specific people could create a review issue and assing it

could always make remarks in it

if did finish a piece of work and want people to review it - no need to be shy about it

expect people to provide a comment in it- either looks good or add comments

need some agreement on how can be asynchonous if going to work in that way more

MK: will add a link to review issue in the coding template

for people with stuff in review state - menu menubar tabs... link in the exmaple to the issue and a link the in the issue to the example

was reviewing as a group, but now if going to write or edit a pattern just do it and then submit to the group for review... no need for the first column in the trable

Review 4Q working draft milestone and set priorities for next 2 weeks

<mck_> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/milestone/4

<jemma_> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues

have 17 issues here

Jemma: no Q4 issues for me

JN: moved the menu and menubar to Q4

MK: MB focussed on tabs?

MB: pretty much ready for review... if you know more than I do then tell me

MK: looks like there were some issues in #114 that not finished
... were you also going to develop an implementation that selection doesn't follow focus.

MB: an option is available....

MK: might be easier if 2 on 1 page

MB: need to see if the script supports 2 tab widgets on 1 page

MK: Jemma on menu bar
... noticed on the tabs one that some of the template features aren't there

some structural elements where regions aropund the html code source and the example itself

MB: the code example page

MK: can look in the code template subdirectory... comments in the code

<jemma_> info from meeting minute 10/3/2016

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148  of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: jamesn
Inferring ScribeNick: jamesn
Default Present: JamesNurthen, JaEunJemmaKu, MichielBijl, jongund, AnnAbbott, Bryan_Garaventa, IanPouncey, JemmaJaEunKu
Present: JamesNurthen JaEunJemmaKu MichielBijl jongund AnnAbbott Bryan_Garaventa IanPouncey JemmaJaEunKu

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 17 Oct 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/17-aria-apg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.