IRC log of wcag-act on 2019-09-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:04:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
13:04:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-wcag-act-irc
13:04:02 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:04:05 [trackbot]
Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
13:04:05 [trackbot]
Date: 12 September 2019
13:04:27 [maryjojm]
zakim, clear agenda
13:04:27 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
13:05:20 [kathyeng]
kathyeng has joined #wcag-act
13:05:28 [maryjojm]
agenda+ Go over "Page has a title" rule review survey results
13:07:01 [maryjojm]
agenda+ Rule review process
13:07:41 [maryjojm]
chair: Mary_Jo_Mueller
13:08:19 [maryjojm]
scribe: kathyeng
13:08:31 [kathyeng]
present+
13:09:02 [kathyeng]
zakim, take up next
13:09:02 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Rule review process" taken up [from maryjojm]
13:09:08 [Kasper]
Kasper has joined #wcag-act
13:09:09 [Kasper]
present+
13:09:23 [maryjojm]
present+
13:09:29 [maryjojm]
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTPAGETITLE/results
13:09:35 [shadi]
shadi has joined #wcag-act
13:09:36 [kathyeng]
maryjo: 2 surveys from maryjo and kathy
13:09:50 [shadi]
present+
13:09:56 [shadi]
agenda?
13:10:24 [shadi]
zakim, take up agenda item 1
13:10:24 [Zakim]
'item\ 1' does not match any agenda item, shadi
13:10:24 [kathyeng]
maryjo: agenda item 2 taken up first
13:10:36 [shadi]
zakim, take up agendum 1
13:10:36 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Go over "Page has a title" rule review survey results" taken up [from maryjojm]
13:10:47 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #wcag-act
13:10:48 [kathyeng]
... look at survey results, both of us answered positively on everything
13:11:06 [kathyeng]
... for the 2 responses, it's publish as is
13:11:32 [kathyeng]
... need other responses, so need to extend survey
13:12:37 [kathyeng]
... due date by a few days
13:13:03 [kathyeng]
wilco: extend to next Thursday
13:13:19 [kathyeng]
wilco: another can be opened for xml lang match
13:13:21 [Wilco]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/417
13:14:07 [kathyeng]
kathy: Trusted Tester implementation added, all results were as expected
13:14:38 [kathyeng]
shadi: to maryjo, some of your responses were I don't know, should we review?
13:14:55 [kathyeng]
maryjo: no I don't knows on this survey
13:15:12 [kathyeng]
shadi: sorry, I misread the results. ok, great 2 people agree
13:15:35 [kathyeng]
maryjo: we'll keep it open for another week to get more responses
13:15:44 [kathyeng]
... maybe it'll be our first rule published
13:15:49 [kathyeng]
zakim, take up next
13:15:49 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Rule review process" taken up [from maryjojm]
13:16:35 [kathyeng]
wilco: yesterday, an editorial was made to page title rule
13:16:52 [kathyeng]
... a note from expectation 1 was removed because it was a duplicate
13:17:07 [kathyeng]
maryjo: that sounds reasonable
13:17:37 [maryjojm]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/418
13:18:02 [kathyeng]
shadi: I put editorial suggestions in the pull request. I hope they are editorial
13:18:20 [maryjojm]
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/418/commits/b279f4e375ced3aa703b62eb37121cfc73bad269
13:18:35 [kathyeng]
maryjo: that link is your updates
13:19:00 [kathyeng]
shadi: there was heavy rewording in intro. I tried not to change any meaning.
13:19:38 [kathyeng]
... trying to be clearer. just suggestions.
13:20:04 [Wilco]
q+ to talk about "individual rule providers"
13:20:15 [kathyeng]
... "propose" and "submitted" were used interchangeably
13:21:02 [kathyeng]
shadi: tried to use "submit" more consistently. rule provider "submits" and task force "proposes"
13:21:19 [kathyeng]
wilco and maryjo: like this change
13:21:31 [Wilco]
ack w
13:21:31 [Zakim]
Wilco, you wanted to talk about "individual rule providers"
13:22:12 [kathyeng]
wilco: original draft only mentions "organizations". not sure to consider individuals as rule providers
13:22:43 [kathyeng]
... individual doesn't have a review process to get to acceptable quality
13:23:41 [kathyeng]
shadi: in the past, individuals have participated without an organization to back them
13:24:01 [kathyeng]
shadi: an "entity"?
13:24:51 [kathyeng]
maryjo: "group" is fine. "entity" could be a single person
13:25:07 [kathyeng]
wilco: "organizations" or "groups"
13:26:19 [kathyeng]
wilco: leave it for now and see if it works
13:27:26 [kathyeng]
shadi: licensing: cannot have a rule published by W3C and owned by other
13:29:18 [kathyeng]
... whomever contributes the rule, sign an agreement: if W3C publishes, it must be royalty free so others can use it
13:29:39 [kathyeng]
... W3C has its own licensing
13:31:18 [kathyeng]
... once group accepts rule, rule provider must submit a license agreement so content is under W3C ownershop so rule can be updated
13:34:12 [kathyeng]
... when a fork of the rule made by W3C is necessary
13:35:13 [kathyeng]
kasper: owner of copyright can grant permissions
13:35:24 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-testcases.html
13:35:50 [kathyeng]
shadi: W3C would work similar to above link
13:36:24 [kathyeng]
wilco: need a clear W3C license for submissions
13:37:11 [kathyeng]
... include it in screening
13:38:03 [kathyeng]
... who in community group can sign that agreement?
13:38:39 [kathyeng]
shadi: work of community group has an open license
13:38:48 [kathyeng]
wilco: so anyone can sign it?
13:39:06 [kathyeng]
shadi: yes but will double check
13:39:46 [kathyeng]
wilco: the person who submits the rule has to have copyright or license?
13:40:08 [kathyeng]
kasper: only the copyright holder can grant a copyright license, which is what W3C requires
13:40:26 [kathyeng]
... could be the author or organization rep
13:41:42 [kathyeng]
shadi: for the task force, it is W3C is the license owner
13:42:03 [shadi]
https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
13:42:12 [kathyeng]
... W3C contributor license agreement link
13:43:07 [kathyeng]
shadi: under 2: agreement grants a license to W3C for work. no patent of that work.
13:44:07 [kathyeng]
wilco: thought license was different
13:44:29 [kathyeng]
shadi: W3C has several licenses, community group license is very open
13:44:54 [kathyeng]
wilco: so W3C holds license for ACT-R work
13:46:50 [kathyeng]
shadi: license allows a submitter to just submit a rule, or first need to check if a submitter can submit the rule for the organization
13:47:55 [kathyeng]
kasper: definition of "you" and "your" at the bottom, signee can grant permission to anyone/anywhere
13:48:50 [kathyeng]
shadi: in this case, it to W3C
13:49:22 [kathyeng]
wilco: asking for license is still correct, what's the current license
13:50:17 [kathyeng]
... second part, how to determine if submitter can submit the rule on behalf of organization
13:50:31 [kathyeng]
... either AG member, under a license that allows it
13:50:59 [kathyeng]
shadi: or a non-member will need additional checking
13:51:36 [kathyeng]
wilco: change needed to proposal?
13:51:57 [kathyeng]
maryjo: is it needed in the survey of the rule?
13:52:11 [kathyeng]
wilco: submission requires license info
13:52:36 [kathyeng]
... I can add that to screening section, but not needed in survey
13:55:10 [kathyeng]
wilco: good topic for next week
13:55:39 [kathyeng]
maryjo: topic: add licensing to screening section
13:56:09 [kathyeng]
wilco: and format. template and pull request would be good
13:56:23 [maryjojm]
What format we want the submission in - a pull request using the template, probably
14:40:23 [shadi]
trackbot, end meeting
14:40:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
14:40:23 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Kasper, shadi, kathyeng, maryjojm
14:40:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:40:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/12-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot