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 14:40:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 14:40:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items