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