00:03:47 RRSAgent has joined #i18n 00:03:47 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-irc 00:04:02 Meeting: TPAC 2019 Internationalization (I18N) WG 00:04:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 00:04:15 Chair: Addison Phillips 00:04:47 chaals has joined #i18n 00:05:46 present+ 00:05:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 00:06:24 rrsagent, set logs world 00:07:25 zakim, who is here? 00:07:26 Present: addison 00:07:26 On IRC I see chaals, RRSAgent, marcosc, xfq_, Zakim, addison, agendabot, sangwhan, florian, bigbluehat, littledan, koji, trackbot 00:07:46 present+ Martin, Richard, David, Atsushi 00:07:53 present+ Jason (observer) 00:07:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 00:08:17 atsushi has joined #i18n 00:08:35 r12a has joined #i18n 00:10:26 r12a-again has joined #i18n 00:11:51 myles has joined #i18n 00:12:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 00:12:32 rrsagent, set logs world 00:12:56 topic: https://www.w3.org/wiki/I18N_2019_TPAC 00:13:29 DavidClarke has joined #i18n 00:14:18 duerst has joined #i18n 00:15:19 jason has joined #i18n 00:16:31 topic: Introductions 00:20:13 present+ Bert 00:21:47 scribenick: DavidClarke 00:22:09 https://www.w3.org/wiki/I18N_2019_TPAC 00:22:18 addison: Agenda does not lookpacked yet, but will become so 00:23:24 r12a-again: privacy Ping group will be coming to I18n this afternoon 00:23:35 yoshiroy has joined #i18n 00:24:02 yoshiroy has left #i18n 00:24:15 r12a-again: work through wiki page and discuss notification, preferably straighh after 00:24:53 present+ PLH 00:25:13 r12a-again: also some discussion with accessibilty likely 00:25:26 present+ 00:26:13 r12a-again: discussion on tooling after 4 pm meeting 00:27:31 PLH: warned that tooling may change version of XML - beware of consequences 00:28:33 r12a-again: Makoto-san should be invited for JLTF at 13:00 Tuesday , accessiblilty of Ruby, and how to move Ruby forwards 00:28:58 r12a-again: ideally fantasia should be there, too 00:30:22 addison: what other groups do we need to talk to 00:31:18 action: addison: ping rossen about time to meet CSS about text 00:31:19 Created ACTION-826 - Ping rossen about time to meet css about text [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23]. 00:31:21 ... CSS 10am Tuesday, so ping Rossen (co-chair CSS) to confirm availability 00:32:19 r12a-again: Thursday - Marie-Claire I18n course development 00:33:39 Addison: What else do we aim to accomplish? Agenda backlog, and very old tracker issues 00:34:17 Bert has joined #i18n 00:34:25 addison: needs to schedule time with accessibilty iso-639 00:34:53 addison: Should be invite ivan? 00:35:20 action: addison: contact wendy reed regarding treatment of language in pub manifest 00:35:21 Created ACTION-827 - Contact wendy reed regarding treatment of language in pub manifest [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23]. 00:35:34 r12a: heis very busy, please talk to Wendy Reid on change of language in pub-manifest 00:36:33 addison: so probably 1 more cross over meeting. What about JSON LD? 00:36:59 r12a: what is current status of JSON-LD? 00:38:03 status update scheduled for 9:45 00:39:20 addison: Article on well formed versus valid rtl, and visit document development backlog. Charmodnorm has been published, others still need work. 00:39:53 addison: We have an HTML DOM spec review. 00:40:10 Bert: Not reviewed it yet. 00:40:33 addison: make time to talk about HTML this morning. 00:40:40 addison: AOB 00:41:05 -- exeuent PLH -- 00:41:37 Topic: JSON-LD 00:41:47 jason: Here to see how WG works 00:42:22 jason has joined #i18n 00:42:52 addison: There are a number of specs that have ha lack of standardisation about language handling. 00:42:55 https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/# 00:43:06 ... Created string meta issues to discuss 00:43:18 jason has joined #i18n 00:44:05 ... Discussed with Ivan Herman about how to fix the problem generally. Result was to charter new WG for Linked Data with language and direction metadata. 00:44:25 jlinehan has joined #i18n 00:44:31 ... Not much support, as reluctant to reopen existing specifications 00:44:57 ... That may not go forwards. There are some other proposals. 00:45:30 r12a: The current proposal is to start a community group. 00:46:59 duerst: Says IETF use an update scheme referring to specific paragraphs. This works but can be difficult to read. This may be the appropriate way for this problem. but W3C doesn't seem to have an update 00:47:07 ... system 00:47:55 ... CSS has gone to a module form which enable changing separate parts 00:48:24 ... is this differntial spec viable in W3C rules? 00:48:53 ... People don't like to reopen the spec. Why technical or editting issues. 00:49:28 addison: Limiting the scope often pushes back to I18n group 00:49:49 duerst: Who will do work and accept the result of changes 00:50:48 addison: Mostly and existion of existing specifications. Side effect is that the core spec is spread across many specifications concerns community. 00:51:55 ... JSON-LD is seen as the spec for refernce and would prefer i18n to do the work on this. We need to talk to them about timelines and liaison 00:53:05 r12a: Ivan suggested I18n should do the work, but we do not have the RDF experience. We prefer to collaborate and it is inappropriate for I18n to force changes onto another spec 00:54:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 00:55:35 ... Related to that, i18n needs to complete document on string-meta 00:56:04 https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/ 00:57:18 ... Occasionally we lose focus. We need better prioritisation. 00:58:16 addison: with only 2 people editting documents and having full time jobs it is difficult. 00:59:19 DavidClarke: Maybe try to do it Agile backlog style, with completion of some better than many partially completed docs. 00:59:59 r12a: We need better focus 01:00:30 addison: We backed off string-meta after meetings with other stakeholders 01:01:56 ... String-meta needs to influence JSON-LD as this is a base core for many other specs. Is the document adequate, as it seems to need explanation after it has been read by other parties 01:02:28 r12a: It is a complicated topic, but we have rewritten it to take on some of these concerns. 01:03:25 addison: I use it at work for reference, even though not published, yet. 01:04:00 bert: It is longer than I expected 01:04:53 r12a: It grew as we tried to explain the concepts more simply. Reoganised it to allow ToC to lead to relevant sections easily. 01:05:17 action: addison: ask group to read string-meta and provide feedback 01:05:17 Created ACTION-828 - Ask group to read string-meta and provide feedback [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23]. 01:05:38 r12a: i18n WG - please re-read it by tomorrow for comments and discussion 01:07:48 r12a: In general, what else shal we do to propogate the bidi issues? Do we go to Ralph? 01:08:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 01:08:26 duerst: Talk to everyone, but then nobody may feel responsible 01:08:32 s/shal/shall/ 01:09:27 r12a: It would be useful to speak at the plenary, but we can't do that. 01:09:40 jlinehan_ has joined #i18n 01:10:08 duerst: We could visit interested groups at the plenary and split up to cover more ground. 01:12:59 atsushi: could it be raised at the Chairs lunch or breakfast? 01:13:20 action: addison: raise string-meta problem at chairs lunch 01:13:21 Created ACTION-829 - Raise string-meta problem at chairs lunch [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23]. 01:13:44 r12a: short demo of how it breaks with latin characters at the start of Arabic text 01:14:16 r12a: Already has slide presnetation which talks about it. 01:14:31 https://www.w3.org/International/talks/1810-paris/#metadata 01:15:31 s/presnetation/presentation/ 01:24:53 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 01:26:23 r12a: Summarize: Addison will look into chairs' lunch. I18n will read and finish off string-meta, subject to other priorities. 01:27:24 Addison: We are not the people to do the work for JSON-LD as they will not own it. 01:27:38 ... all present agreed 01:28:17 ... should we ping TAG about it. 01:29:37 r12a: They handed it off to Sangwan et al. Menu is interested. 01:29:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 01:30:41 r12a has joined #i18n 01:30:44 s/Sangwan/Sangwhan 01:30:52 addison: adjourn for 20 minutes. 01:31:45 r12a has joined #i18n 01:34:55 r12a-again has joined #i18n 01:36:42 r12a_ has joined #i18n 02:01:38 addison has joined #i18n 02:02:45 r12a has joined #i18n 02:02:51 r12a has joined #i18n 02:02:51 xfq_ has joined #i18n 02:04:17 chaals has joined #i18n 02:05:02 xfq_ has joined #i18n 02:05:33 Topic: Info Share 02:05:56 DavidClarke has joined #i18n 02:05:59 scribe: Bert 02:05:59 marcosc has joined #i18n 02:07:19 addison: We were scheduled tomorrow to meet CSS and WAI. Confirmed. Before and after lunch. 02:07:52 r12a: plh told me a11y folk looking at "bliss" symbols. 02:08:09 ... He thought i18n might want to comment on it. 02:09:00 ... it will put numbers in an "data-symbol" attribute that refer to bliss symbols. 02:09:24 ... Can be applied to a word or phrase. 02:09:52 ... Bliss symbols can be spaced differently depending on function. 02:10:00 ... That might be a first issue. 02:10:42 ... The symbols can be localized as well, e.g., switching verb noun order. 02:11:06 ... Haven't thought it through, but might need some language labeling. 02:12:11 ... "data-symbol" also seems kind of generic. 02:12:36 DavidClarke: "data-bliss"? 02:12:58 atsushi has joined #i18n 02:13:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 02:13:34 jlinehan has joined #i18n 02:13:51 r12a: I have some links: 02:13:58 duerst has joined #i18n 02:14:06 -- 02:14:13 The symbol attribute in [1] identifies the concept for symbols, eg 02:14:13 cup of Tea 02:14:13 The numbers are the same references numbers used in Bliss (BCI numbers): 02:14:15 http://www.blissymbolics.org/ 02:14:17 Looks to me that this is highly relevant for Unicode and would benefit from your experience. Make sure to take the first opportunity to talk to Michael. 02:14:17 RRSAgent, pointer? 02:14:17 See https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-irc#T02-14-17-1 02:14:19 Philippe 02:14:21 [1] https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#symbol-explanation 02:14:23 -- 02:15:08 r12a: The "Michael" is Michael Cooper, for a11y. 02:16:30 duerst: Spec says "copyright license from Bliss"... 02:17:04 R12a: Not sure how that works, but not sure that is _our_ problem. 02:17:35 duerst: Unicode might worry about that. 02:18:17 action: addison: check with Unicode about the status of bliss symbol encoding 02:18:18 Created ACTION-830 - Check with unicode about the status of bliss symbol encoding [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23]. 02:18:19 r12a: There is a proposal for Unicode from several years ago. We may need to do some liaising with them. 02:19:02 action-826? 02:19:02 action-826 -- Addison Phillips to Ping rossen about time to meet css about text -- due 2019-09-23 -- OPEN 02:19:02 https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/826 02:19:08 close action-826 02:19:08 Closed action-826. 02:20:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 02:21:04 r12a: As brief summary, bliss is a kind of language, the symbols combine into compound words and sentences. 02:22:10 ... Idea is that you don't need to speak a language or its grammar, but on the other hand bliss does adapt to languages. 02:22:25 addison: Some 5000 authorized symbols, it says. 02:22:48 DavidClarke: Could it be used as a kind ALT text? 02:23:31 duerst: Yes, except that ALT is text instead of images, and this is images as alternative of text. 02:24:18 addison: Is a discussion with a11y already planned? 02:24:44 r12a: No, and we haven't read the spec yet. But could bring it up when we meet them on Thursday. 02:25:14 addison: OK, I'll put it on the agenda. 02:26:27 [Agenda planning, lunch scheduling...] 02:29:06 Ruby (with Makoto) is scheduled for 13:00, so lunch needs to be arranged around that. 02:31:48 So lunch at noon. 02:32:07 go through html: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2019Sep/0017.html 02:32:39 Topic: HTML issues in tracker 02:32:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 02:33:22 https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/553 02:35:56 chaals has joined #i18n 02:38:14 addison: Issue was closed for W3C HTML5, because it was fixed. Is it not fixed in WhatWG? 02:38:29 ... Seems it is not fixed. 02:39:20 r12a: I think it should be a question, rather than a request to fix. Need to study if it is actually a good idea to have two languages on the same page. 02:39:47 addison: Maybe for a bi-languagal page? 02:40:24 DavidClarke: Seen examples of pages in Welsh and English, with short descriptions if both. 02:41:47 ... If your prefered language is Welsh then Google could return you the Welsh description in the search result. 02:42:09 s/ if both/ in both/ 02:43:25 ... But of course, if your preference is Japanese, how does it select whether to show the Welsh or the English description? 02:44:19 jason: Wikipedia pages are strongly in one language. It's tied to the domain name. 02:44:51 02:45:09 DavidClarke: Descriptions with and without lang attributes. 02:47:21 Discussion about having multiple pages vs one page with multiple languages. 02:48:34 Bert: There can only be one 02:49:44 <Bert> People have vague memories of a discussion about <title>, too. 02:50:40 <Bert> DavidClarke: In UK, trend seems to be to having two pages. Haven't looked recently what government pages are like at the moment. 02:51:07 <Bert> ... If you do multiple descriptions, multiple titles might make sense, too. 02:51:36 <Bert> r12a: Need to look at what these elements are used for. Description is mostly for search engines, isn't it? 02:52:12 <Bert> DavidClarke: meta description could be used as extended title, or for classification. 02:53:18 <Bert> duerst: Wanted to add an issue about the language tag "-ez", which doesn't exist, but the spec says it was "archived" and I couldn't. 02:53:22 <chaals> chaals has joined #i18n 02:54:05 <xfq_> the current clreq and jlreq documents might be this kind of multilingual document 02:54:09 <xfq_> currently both languages are put in the title side by side, no meta description 02:54:45 <Bert> r12a: We could also just ignore the issue, until somebody brings it up again. 02:54:48 <DavidClarke> bilingual gov.uk https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency 02:56:31 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/1292#issuecomment-377298715 02:57:03 <Bert> addison: Discussion about <span> in <title> ^^ 02:57:39 <addison> ... or about <meta title> with spans allowed inside 02:57:59 <Bert> ... mentions multiple <title>s as well. 02:58:49 <addison> <meta type="title" lang="...">My title is <span lang="...">something</span>.</meta> 03:01:22 <Bert> addison: These are very old issues, might be good things, but is it worth the fight. Note that we didn't raise the issues ourselves. 03:02:21 <Bert> duerst: If you don't try, it won't happen. There might just be something else that suddenly makes this possible. 03:03:46 <Bert> ... The old argument for sigle string title was that the title is handed by the browser to the OS to put in the title. 03:03:54 <Bert> s/sigle/single/ 03:05:03 <Bert> addison: Current API's generally allow passing language info. Not nested spans with languages, but those might be done with Unicode. 03:05:35 <Bert> DavidClarke: My Firefox doesn't have a title bar, it has tabs. 03:06:19 <Bert> addison: a11y: screen readers need language info, too. 03:08:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 03:10:09 <Bert> addison: What do we resolve? Could send a question, or drop. 03:10:33 <Bert> r12a: I'm worried that we would have to formulate a proposal to go with it. 03:11:29 <Bert> DavidClarke: Feels right to me to ask the question. There are people affected by this. Not sure I'd want to write a proposal, but I can think about it. 03:11:34 <addison> action: David: consider a proposal on title/meta for whatwg and report back 03:11:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-831 - Consider a proposal on title/meta for whatwg and report back [on David Clarke - due 2019-09-23]. 03:11:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 03:12:20 <Bert> [Lunch until 13:00] 03:12:21 <addison> Topic: Lunch 03:12:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 04:04:14 <myles> myles has joined #i18n 04:04:27 <atsushi> atsushi has joined #i18n 04:06:11 <DavidClarke> DavidClarke has joined #i18n 04:07:25 <addison> addison has joined #i18n 04:07:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 04:08:57 <addison> present+ Makoto, Bobby 04:09:44 <jlinehan> jlinehan has joined #i18n 04:09:51 <bobbytung> bobbytung has joined #i18n 04:12:23 <myles> myles has joined #i18n 04:13:31 <atsushi> scribe: atsushi 04:14:40 <duerst> duerst has joined #i18n 04:14:57 <atsushi> addison: asking who you are and why you here 04:15:15 <atsushi> Naoki: from Mituerinks 04:15:42 <atsushi> Kawanabe & XXX: from Shogakukan 04:16:26 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 04:17:23 <atsushi> addison: talk on ruby and accessibility 04:17:40 <atsushi> makoto: more involved in daisy text book for accessibility 04:17:59 <atsushi> ... speaking with accessibility people in Japan, and learning various things from them 04:18:07 <atsushi> ... (start presentation) 04:18:29 <atsushi> ... introduce six presentations on ruby and hiragana 04:18:53 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 04:20:52 <atsushi> (presentation file will be shared later) 04:21:18 <atsushi> makoto: these were simple representation, but there are more complexed examples 04:21:44 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 04:21:51 <atsushi> ... like kanji characters which are difficult for 99.9% Japanese to write 04:22:35 <r12a-again> r12a-again has joined #i18n 04:23:02 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 04:24:50 <atsushi> ... some concerns for six presentations from low-vision, dyslexia, japanese as second language 04:29:37 <atsushi> ... we may need to provide one html markup which can present in different way 04:30:35 <atsushi> r12a: with current ruby elements, first (hiragana representation without kanji) is not possible 04:30:45 <atsushi> ... you need to have rb element 04:30:53 <atsushi> florian: two levels of problems 04:31:15 <atsushi> ... chrome to whatwg spec, firefox to w3c spec + css ruby 04:32:10 <momdo> momdo has joined #i18n 04:32:27 <atsushi> ... firefox most are possible, but need css enhancement for replacement with ruby for base text 04:34:41 <atsushi> makoto: for dyslexia, making ruby annotation colorize is also important 04:35:45 <atsushi> ... there are many alternatives to ruby, like speech 04:37:06 <atsushi> florian: whatwg html spec is not great, css drafts are also not perfect 04:37:16 <atsushi> ... actual blocking part is implementation 04:37:34 <atsushi> ... firefox has, chrome could have implementation soon 04:37:54 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #i18n 04:39:01 <atsushi> ... chrome is working on rewritting layout engine 04:40:04 <atsushi> makoto: i would like to have priolitized list of requirements 04:40:15 <atsushi> ... dedicated to ruby and also accessibility 04:40:33 <atsushi> ... these could be an important information for browser venders 04:40:53 <atsushi> r12a: can we get these requirement information in gap-analysis 04:40:58 <atsushi> makoto: of course 04:41:49 <atsushi> florian: thanks to Kobayashi-sensei in APL JLReq, we have note on implementation/presentation on ruby, scoped to base cases 04:42:09 <atsushi> ... if we could implement all in that list, that could be a good sign 04:42:29 <atsushi> ... so that list could be the good starting point for gap-analysis 04:42:58 <atsushi> r12a: which is the way to publish? WG note? 04:43:48 <florian> https://w3c.github.io/jlreq/docs/simple-ruby/ 04:43:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 04:44:40 <jlinehan> jlinehan has joined #i18n 04:44:44 <atsushi> florian: desire is to publish this as WG note, of course we need to fix if anyone found something to be fixed before publish 04:45:34 <marcosc> marcosc has joined #i18n 04:45:45 <atsushi> addison: with better title and good text, could publish as good practice article 04:46:29 <chaals> chaals has joined #i18n 04:47:01 <atsushi> r12a: wondering why to target 'Note'? 04:47:31 <atsushi> florian: to state output from APL (?) 04:49:11 <atsushi> ... prioritize is useful for output 04:50:42 <atsushi> makoto: nat locked into double sided ruby, and his conclusion was that there are user requirements, but considering performance he dropped that 04:51:01 <atsushi> r12a: it shall depend on way of implementation, like what firefox did 04:53:27 <bobbytung> bobbytung has joined #i18n 04:54:14 <atsushi> makoto: indicating pronounciation or adding another presentation 04:58:22 <Roy_> Roy_ has joined #i18n 04:59:41 <atsushi> florian: just passing text is not aceptable for sppech synthesis point of view 05:00:31 <florian> s/acceptable for sppech/sufficient for good speech/ 05:03:00 <atsushi> makoto: japanese daisy people consider only kanji presentation is better for good speech 05:03:30 <r12a> cf ame vs ame which have different pitch 05:03:36 <atsushi> florian: if you have kanji it is good for speech, but only ruby is not 05:03:40 <r12a> which is visible in kanji 05:05:58 <atsushi> r12a: w3c have tabular model, whatwg is interleave 05:06:18 <atsushi> ... better to bring w3c one into whatwg 05:06:44 <atsushi> ... we have a spec partly written 05:07:11 <atsushi> ... ruby position, chinese ruby is easy, double sided 05:07:55 <atsushi> ... question is how we can get things to go 05:08:25 <marcosc> marcosc has joined #i18n 05:12:24 <atsushi> r12a: koji is avaiable on Thurs, will find time to talk on this with him 05:13:25 <atsushi> ... spec, document, chrome implementation, how to manage all? 05:14:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 05:16:57 <atsushi> makoto: how about tests? 05:17:12 <atsushi> florian: yes, also number is question 05:17:36 <atsushi> ... in addition to test on ruby itself, also need interaction parts 05:18:08 <atsushi> ... checking cross spec interactions, better to spent time for writting tests 05:20:08 <chaals> chaals has joined #i18n 05:30:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 05:36:09 <addison> Topic: HTML issues 05:36:10 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269 05:36:10 <atsushi> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/269 05:36:11 <atsushi> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/126 05:36:23 <atsushi> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3260 05:36:34 <jlinehan> jlinehan has joined #i18n 05:37:36 <xfq> xfq has joined #i18n 05:37:49 <atsushi> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/interaction.html#input-modalities:-the-inputmode-attribute 05:48:28 <Bert> scribe: Bert 05:49:03 <Bert> atsushi explains original issue. inputmode mixed script and keyboard mode. 05:50:38 <Bert> addison: inputmode select a specific virtual keyboard. Current list in HTML5 corresponds to current virtual keyboard types. Doesn't provide for modal keyboards, e.g. 05:51:14 <Bert> ... Rather geared towards western scripts. 05:51:41 <Bert> ... Not to Asian IMEs. 05:52:12 <Bert> ... But it is just a hint. 05:52:35 <Bert> r12a: What is our actual issue with it? 05:53:18 <Bert> addison: It's to do with i18n, but maybe we don't actually have an issue. 05:54:44 <bobbytung> bobbytung has joined #i18n 05:54:45 <Bert> r12a: Maybe we need to do some research before we close the issue. Or close this issue and make another. 05:55:50 <addison> RESOLVED: close #126; further investigation or work on inputmode, e.g. with IME modes, we will consider if raised independently or if the WG decides to pursue 05:56:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 05:56:02 <atsushi> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/518 05:56:32 <addison> RESOLVED: close #518 as a dupe 05:56:38 <Bert> atsushi: It's a dup of what we discussed this morning. 05:57:11 <atsushi> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2019Sep/0024.html 05:57:43 <r12a> Link from Murata-san: https://1drv.ms/p/s!An5Z79wj5AZBgqUIlh2vtsqXfyjNZg?e=BdYdli 05:58:24 <jlinehan> jlinehan has joined #i18n 06:00:32 <Bert> XSLT is a REC already, and the link to the Bugzilla is broken. Might as well close the issue. 06:03:13 <Bert> Discussing i18n-ISSUE-394 06:04:47 <Bert> addison: I'd say close all issues in Atsushi's mail [above] 06:04:48 <addison> RESOLVED: close all stale issues in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2019Sep/0024.html 06:05:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 06:06:48 <addison> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2019Sep/0018.html 06:08:49 <atsushi> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/697 06:08:49 <atsushi> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/678 06:11:10 <addison> RESOLVED: close issues 697 and 678 06:11:15 <addison> Topic: Break 06:11:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 06:11:47 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 06:26:08 <Mek> Mek has joined #i18n 06:29:17 <addison> addison has joined #i18n 06:31:40 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 06:32:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #i18n 06:46:37 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 06:49:02 <addison> NOTE: 1600-1700 meeting about HR review is moved to room "YOH", which is where PING is sitting. They have ~40 people and our room won't hold it. 06:49:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 06:50:52 <yoshiroy> yoshiroy has joined #i18n 06:53:20 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 06:54:29 <xfq> xfq has joined #i18n 06:54:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 06:54:53 <DavidClarke> DavidClarke has joined #i18n 06:57:05 <atsushi> atsushi has joined #i18n 06:58:41 <addison> Topic: Horizontal Review discussion 06:59:00 <addison> scribenick: addison 06:59:17 <Jc> Jc has joined #i18n 06:59:24 <hober> hober has joined #i18n 06:59:27 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #i18n 06:59:33 <taraw> taraw has joined #i18n 06:59:33 <hober> present+ 06:59:39 <Judy> Judy has joined #i18n 06:59:44 <taraw> present+ 06:59:45 <Judy> present+ 06:59:50 <Roy_> Roy_ has joined #i18n 07:00:10 <christine> christine has joined #i18n 07:00:44 <duerst> duerst has joined #i18n 07:00:46 <christine> present+ christine (PING) 07:00:51 <Roy> present+ 07:00:55 <DavidClarke> present+ 07:01:33 <Roy> Roy has joined #i18n 07:01:45 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #i18n 07:01:45 <tink> tink has joined #i18n 07:01:48 <james> james has joined #i18n 07:01:59 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/wiki/i18n-Horizontal-Review-ideas 07:02:05 <tink> present+ Léonie (tink) 07:02:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #i18n 07:02:29 <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai 07:02:33 <fantasai> r12a: Thanks for coming 07:02:38 <fantasai> Topic: Horizontal Review 07:02:50 <fantasai> r12a: We invited you here today because of discussions in issue 130 07:02:55 <fantasai> r12a: discussion about Process document 07:02:58 <xfq> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130 07:02:59 <fantasai> r12a: discusisons on the CSSWG charter 07:03:02 <fantasai> r12a: various places 07:03:15 <fantasai> r12a: Those bits of wording we're putting together are a little aspirational, espeically the Process document 07:03:18 <fantasai> r12a: as an i18nwg 07:03:26 <fantasai> r12a: we're constrained in the number of people we have to do reviews 07:03:37 <fantasai> r12a: so what we wanted to do was to look at how we cna manage the large number of specs that flows thorugh w3c 07:03:47 <fantasai> r12a: doing reviews with small number of ppl available 07:03:54 <fantasai> r12a: some practical ideas for how to do taht in the document 07:04:00 <fantasai> r12a: would like to ehar comments on the ideas that we have 07:04:08 <fantasai> r12a: and if you have suggests for improvements, ways to adapt for other groups 07:04:50 <fantasai> r12a: trying to get away from Last Call or quality control approach 07:05:02 <chaals> chaals has joined #i18n 07:05:06 <pes> pes has joined #i18n 07:05:19 <fantasai> r12a: we have had only one group that gave us more than 2-3 weeks before going to CR 07:05:20 <chaals> rrsagent, draft minutes 07:05:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html chaals 07:05:24 <fantasai> r12a: that group was a11y, btw 07:05:29 <fantasai> r12a: this is really a problem 07:05:38 <fantasai> r12a: firstly, scheduling review is hard when you only have 2 weeks 07:05:43 <wseltzer> wseltzer has joined #i18n 07:05:46 <fantasai> r12a: already doing other things, have to clear table of other things 07:05:55 <fantasai> r12a: and also consecutive reviews makes a bigger problem 07:06:03 <fantasai> r12a: so trying to make process of doing horizontal "review" more collaborative 07:06:08 <fantasai> r12a: during development of the specification 07:06:13 <fantasai> r12a: starting as if it's possible 07:06:14 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #i18n 07:06:19 <fantasai> r12a: rather than quality control approach 07:06:34 <plh> plh has joined #i18n 07:06:37 <chaals> present+ chaals(HR-session) 07:06:43 <fantasai> r12a: review itself only takes a week or a few 07:06:51 <fantasai> r12a: but need to understand the technolgoy well enough to do the review 07:06:59 <pes> present+ pes 07:07:00 <fantasai> r12a: and then follow-up period which can be a long time 07:07:10 <fantasai> r12a: educating you about the issues, approach, working to resolve 07:07:17 <chaals> present- (tink), (PING), (observer) 07:07:19 <fantasai> r12a: in some cases significant amount of reword needed by those WGs 07:07:43 <weiler> weiler has joined #i18n 07:08:01 <Yves> Yves has joined #i18n 07:08:07 <jay> jay has joined #i18n 07:08:08 <fantasai> janina: hard to track listening to tts and listen to you, rather listen to you 07:08:10 <fantasai> r12a: :D 07:08:15 <fantasai> r12a: was planning to read it all out anyway 07:08:42 <fantasai> r12a: First concept, self-review 07:08:49 <fantasai> r12a: starting at FPWD but at other points during the spec 07:09:10 <fantasai> r12a: HR groups review these, checking for areas where the WG need to think about HR issues 07:09:17 <fantasai> r12a: HR group needs to work on review checklists 07:09:25 <fantasai> r12a: Here talking about fpwd 07:09:36 <fantasai> r12a: my opinion is that groups did self-review before transitioning to FPWD 07:09:41 <fantasai> r12a: so can make changes if necessary before FPWD 07:09:47 <fantasai> r12a: Not saying they have to as i18nwg to review FPWD 07:09:51 <fantasai> r12a: we may, we may not 07:09:57 <fantasai> r12a: what I'm asking is that they do a self-review, and that we review the review 07:10:13 <fantasai> r12a: one reason for self-review is WG to internalize some issues they need to focus on 07:10:22 <fantasai> r12a: ... 07:10:28 <fantasai> r12a: and puts the responsibility more in their court 07:10:37 <fantasai> r12a: rather than "we have to get this group to shout at us a bit and then we move on" 07:10:41 <fantasai> r12a: no, it's part of developing specifications 07:10:50 <fantasai> r12a: I'll go through these and then we can discuss them 07:11:01 <fantasai> r12a: 2nd point, WGs appoint Horizontal Champions 07:11:09 <fantasai> r12a: to ensure contact with HR group happens at the right points 07:11:22 <fantasai> r12a: Not saying these people are experts in HR topic, but people who know who to contact and when to contact them 07:11:33 <fantasai> r12a: we did this in Xerox, where we did exactly what we're talking about now for the whole company 07:11:37 <fantasai> r12a: we then also thought was very important 07:11:46 <fantasai> r12a: It's about giving more responsibility to WG to take on these issues 07:11:55 <fantasai> r12a: Not expecting ppl to be experts, just to know when to contact the groups 07:12:02 <fantasai> r12a: and to make sure that review is planned appropriately 07:12:17 <fantasai> r12a: as they do this work, they will also absorb technical knowledge which will help work on future specs 07:12:27 <fantasai> r12a: unsure we cna do that in w3c, but we'd like that to happen if possible 07:12:46 <fantasai> r12a: 3rd step, WG can ask HR group anytime if they know likely to have HR-related issues 07:12:56 <fantasai> r12a: Process doc talks about continuous review 07:13:05 <fantasai> r12a: but we can't review every three weeks every spec 07:13:11 <fantasai> r12a: but we can be available to answer questions 07:13:20 <fantasai> r12a: we'd like to have only just one major review after FPWD self-reiew 07:13:27 <fantasai> r12a: maybe that will work for some groups, maybe some other won't 07:13:48 <fantasai> addison: We're still a resource for people not just a review group 07:13:56 <fantasai> addison: useful to work through problems collaboratively 07:14:03 <fantasai> addison: and when done, useful to review that as well 07:14:11 <fantasai> addison: this kind of thing also gives us ability to go out and talk with community at large 07:14:31 <fantasai> addison: talk to language community earlier, engage to find out e.g. what quotation marks look like or whatever 07:14:41 <fantasai> r12a: can do that in parallel while you're working on your spec 07:14:52 <fantasai> r12a: we have a notification system, if you attach label i18n-tracking, then we get notified about that issue 07:15:01 <fantasai> r12a: can have a look at that issue and see if we can offer advice; easy way to contact us 07:15:13 <fantasai> r12a: one problem we have with that is that we have to manually set it up for your particular repo 07:15:24 <fantasai> r12a: hoping in the future can enable that to happen for all W3C repos 07:15:38 <fantasai> r12a: if we do it fo rall repos automatically, they will notify us, that will work 07:15:58 <fantasai> r12a: next step, 4th, WGs ask HR groups to have a detailed look at their work prior to CR *with plenty of time to make changes* 07:16:06 <fantasai> r12a: should not be too late; but also shouldn't be too early 07:16:13 <fantasai> r12a: ideal for us is to engage no less than 3 months before CR 07:16:21 <fantasai> r12a: we have weekly meetings, might take up to a month to schedule the review 07:16:39 <fantasai> r12a: 3 months sounds like a lot but goes fast 07:16:45 <fantasai> r12a: many WGs know their CR dates 07:16:52 <fantasai> r12a: if that's not the case for your WG, then ... 07:17:03 <fantasai> r12a: think of this more like quality control than collaboration 07:17:09 <fantasai> r12a: detailed review of the spec 07:17:17 <fantasai> r12a: again, this is only a small part of the activity 07:17:25 <fantasai> r12a: the activity is about collaborating together and understanding issues 07:17:42 <fantasai> r12a: after detailed review, communicate with HR to discuss significant issues not already tracked as result of review 07:17:56 <fantasai> r12a: we do a review, fix some things, some time may elapse, might be new issues or regressions 07:18:00 <fantasai> r12a: need to make sure we capture those 07:18:10 <fantasai> r12a: would be really useful if we don't have to re-review the whole spec again 07:18:19 <fantasai> r12a: but able to say, we changed these sections, please take a look at those 07:18:29 <fantasai> r12a: I mean the WGs as "you" here 07:18:43 <fantasai> r12a: finally, we would prefer to see that before proceeding to CR, WGs indicate resolutions to HR issues that are raised 07:18:46 <marcosc> marcosc has joined #i18n 07:18:49 <fantasai> r12a: indicate whehter HR group is satisfied 07:18:57 <fantasai> r12a: then Directory checks off 07:19:01 <fantasai> r12a: would b enice to automate that 07:19:06 <fantasai> r12a: we do have tracker for each spec we review 07:19:32 <fantasai> r12a: we don't close our issue until we're satsified with the wg resolution, even if wg closes their issue 07:19:36 <fantasai> r12a: would be nice to have automation 07:19:42 <fantasai> r12a: If a WG is unable to predict date of transition to CR 07:19:57 <fantasai> r12a: they will need to engage with HR for major review at a point where they beliee would be effective 07:20:00 <fantasai> r12a: based on state of the spec 07:20:10 <fantasai> r12a: failure to predict transition is not an emergency for the HR group 07:20:24 <fantasai> r12a: if longer journey to CR, but WG should try to engage futher 07:20:30 <fantasai> r12a: but not in a way to overburden HR grou 07:20:52 <fantasai> r12a: 3-month window shouldn't be fixed period, if HR is done sooner, there should be no obstacle preventing an earlier transition 07:21:06 <fantasai> r12a: btw, 3-month window is benefitial to focus review for HR group also not just WG 07:21:22 <fantasai> r12a: if we don't have a date in mind, we tend to give lower priority to the reivew than to other things 07:21:35 <fantasai> r12a: one last thing on tooling, if WG sets a date in the future for a CR 07:21:49 <fantasai> r12a: if date is less than 3 months away, can advise to send review request 07:21:54 <pes> pes has joined #i18n 07:22:10 <fantasai> r12a: so that's our ideas! 07:22:13 <chaals> q+ 07:22:14 <MichaelC> q+ 07:22:14 <dsinger> q+ 07:22:16 <fantasai> r12a: shoot 07:22:29 <fantasai> pes: We've had some conversations very similar ideas 07:22:31 <Judy> q+ 07:22:32 <addison> q? 07:22:35 <fantasai> pes: what to do if WG doesn't do these things? 07:22:38 <fantasai> r12a: ideas? 07:22:42 <fantasai> pes: We have ideas! 07:22:49 <fantasai> pes: without endorsing any of them 07:22:52 <addison> q+ 07:23:06 <fantasai> pes: ideas are to work with other browser vendors to not implement things if didn't go through HR review 07:23:23 <fantasai> pes: Another is to advise AC status of HR review, whether satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or something in the middle 07:23:32 <fantasai> tink: should I go over Process proposal? 07:23:39 <fantasai> tink: In terms of Process, issue 180 07:23:52 <fantasai> s/180/130 07:24:08 <fantasai> tink: the proposal at the moment is to make it clearer in the Process what is expected by wide and horizontal review 07:24:23 <fantasai> tink: still under discusison, but current discussion is to amend Process to put some very clear minimal expectations 07:24:24 <addison> https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130 07:24:30 <fantasai> tink: requirements that we rely upon when this doesn't work 07:24:35 <fantasai> tink: minimum required when this doesn't work 07:24:42 <fantasai> tink: encourages what i18n proposal is about 07:25:01 <fantasai> tink: basically says, objetive of HR is to ensure that W3C publications are robust in terms of [HR topics] 07:25:07 <fantasai> tink: we encourage ppl to seek it continuously 07:25:11 <fantasai> tink: but then there are some key minimum rquirements 07:25:22 <fantasai> tink: one is that a spec that is currently in incubation, as part of its request to migrate to REC track 07:25:36 <fantasai> tink: it should have either complete review checklist or get review 07:25:43 <fantasai> tink: if not simultaneous with that, otherwise at FPWD 07:25:53 <fantasai> tink: The two things may be clsoe neough to be one HR review 07:25:58 <fantasai> tink: but should be invovlement with HR at that point 07:26:02 <chaals> q- 07:26:08 <fantasai> tink: that HR should be at least 90 days prior to CR 07:26:17 <fantasai> tink: doesn't have to be 90 days, doesn't mean it has to take 90 days, but is minimum expectation 07:26:19 <cwilso> cwilso has joined #i18n 07:26:29 <addison> q? 07:26:31 <fantasai> tink: also says that the whole spec, if major revision, e.g. key features added, then HR needs to be considered for those things 07:26:37 <fantasai> tink: then specified a process, still under discussion 07:27:03 <fantasai> tink: when a WG requests review or collaboration with HR group, HR grou pneeds to acknowledge the request and indicate whether can do within time requested, or negotiate timeline 07:27:13 <fantasai> tink: HR group needs to be able to raise issues 07:27:16 <cwilso> Q+ to describe tie-in to incubations 07:27:18 <fantasai> tink: WG needs to give each issue due consideration 07:27:36 <fantasai> tink: either agree and accept, or if not feasible or valid, or contention, spec editors, 07:27:46 <fantasai> tink: both groups need to make concerted effort to move forward 07:27:58 <fantasai> tink: as spec next transitions , evidence of this process will be expected part of the transition request 07:28:10 <fantasai> tink: Director/Team will look for documented requests, responses from HR, discusisons in issues, etc. 07:28:13 <hadleybeeman> hadleybeeman has joined #i18n 07:28:21 <fantasai> tink: look at any outstanding points of contention, open issues 07:28:31 <addison> q? 07:28:37 <fantasai> tink: so in tandom with proposal, here's a wall to put our backs against, minimum requirements 07:28:43 <fantasai> tink: and i18n prposal is how to do in practice 07:29:16 <fantasai> tom: Sounds like the procedure outline attempts to achieve effectiveness through process 07:29:30 <fantasai> tom: without necessarily ensuring that any particular specification does meet the standards set by i18n 07:29:33 <fantasai> r12a: not quite 07:29:34 <Jc> Jc has joined #i18n 07:29:37 <fantasai> r12a: we have a checklist and documentation 07:29:47 <fantasai> r12a: so before you even start working on your spec, you can read abou tthe kinds of things that would be concerned with 07:30:01 <fantasai> tom: from perspective of privacy wg, there's a dynamic that we see from tiem to time where spec is propsoed 07:30:21 <fantasai> tom: "here are negative consequences of your specification, you can fix them like this" and spec author says "I don't really want to so I'm not going to" 07:30:40 <fantasai> tom: seems like the outcome of the procedure you describe would be that the Director is aware of that disagreement, rather than there is any particular resolution of it 07:30:50 <fantasai> tink: almost, if despite best attempt by both groups 07:31:02 <weiler> q+ 07:31:03 <fantasai> tink: when the transition request goes through, that issue is clearly brought to the Director's attetion, including rationale 07:31:15 <fantasai> tink: so that he can make determination of whether spec should advance 07:31:26 <fantasai> addison: .... 07:31:32 <addison> ack MichaelC 07:31:49 <addison> q- 07:31:49 <fantasai> MichaelC: I think overall proposal is good, my questions are 07:31:55 <chaals> s/…/It is always possible to make a formal objection to the transition as well. 07:32:01 <fantasai> MichaelC: where should Process come into play and where should best practices come into play 07:32:17 <fantasai> MichaelC: What happens if these things don't happen, do we have Process sticks or carrot of best practices or what? 07:32:24 <fantasai> MichaelC: I think certain aspects of this more difcicult 07:32:32 <fantasai> MichaelC: Having an HR champion in every group will be difficult 07:32:36 <fantasai> MichaelC: but would be great if possible 07:32:42 <fantasai> MichaelC: if that doesn't happen in a group, what happens? 07:32:48 <fantasai> MichaelC: overall proposal very well thought through 07:32:54 <weiler> q+ to respond to Leonie re: "best attempt by both groups" and to comment on "review champions" 07:32:58 <addison> ack dsinger 07:33:01 <fantasai> r12a: when we say horizontal champion, we don't mean people who are in HR group, but working with us 07:33:09 <fantasai> dsinger: I like the collaborative way you're designing this 07:33:21 <fantasai> dsinger: what you wrote and not said, was too much ppl-oriented and not tooling automated 07:33:26 <fantasai> dsinger: what you said about tagging is crucial 07:33:48 <fantasai> dsinger: that HR champion should be makign sure that if an issue or PR has i18n or a11y or privacy aspect to it, issue is tagged 07:33:53 <fantasai> dsinger: not getting it righ tall the time, 07:34:00 <fantasai> dsinger: but when final review happens form that cross-functional group 07:34:11 <fantasai> dsinger: architectural problem found at Last Call is hard to fix 07:34:18 <fantasai> dsinger: real incentive to fix earlier 07:34:37 <toml> toml has joined #i18n 07:34:42 <fantasai> dsinger: I think getting insistence that REC track document are using tags and applied early 07:34:52 <weiler> q? 07:34:52 <fantasai> dsinger: key way to make this incremental and workable 07:35:03 <fantasai> dsinger: also would like when transition, there is summary traffic lights from each HR group 07:35:12 <fantasai> dsinger: three-color scheme, green - it's fine no problem go ahead 07:35:17 <fantasai> dsinger: yellow, some concers about it, please look 07:35:24 <fantasai> dsinger: red, this we don't think document should be published in current form 07:35:28 <fantasai> dsinger: formal objection 07:35:42 <fantasai> dsinger: if AC and Director saw that, much easier ofr us to take HR and cross-functional review more effective 07:35:56 <fantasai> dsinger: If three yellow flags, look more quesitoningly at the spec 07:36:06 <addison> ack Judy 07:36:07 <fantasai> dsinger: This is going in the right direction, but need help with tooling 07:36:23 <fantasai> Judy: Overall good, but I suspect some parts of what yu described, r12a, might be optimized for i18n and some may not 07:36:27 <fantasai> Judy: to some that are not 07:36:38 <fantasai> Judy: one concern I have is not every HR group may want or be able to enage early in every instance 07:36:43 <fantasai> Judy: and therefore I'm concerned that becomes an absolute expectation 07:36:53 <fantasai> Judy: so great to encourage that, but don't know if that's something that works across the board 07:37:07 <fantasai> Judy: second is ditto on Michael's concern about embedded HR champions 07:37:15 <fantasai> Judy: I think it's great when it can happen, but do have some scalability concern 07:37:19 <fantasai> Judy: based on what we've tried in the past 07:37:25 <tink> q+ 07:37:30 <fantasai> Judy: so great, but may not be possible, even when designating someone within a group 07:37:38 <fantasai> Judy: also possibility of misunderstanding in a group 07:37:49 <fantasai> Judy: also if someone willing to self-designate as champion on an issue 07:37:55 <fantasai> Judy: agrees to liaise that issue 07:37:59 <fantasai> Judy: may or may not do it effectively 07:38:08 <fantasai> Judy: if effective, can catch architectural disconnects early on 07:38:15 <fantasai> Judy: maybe they give impresison that there is sufficient liaison 07:38:24 <fantasai> Judy: worry about appearance of liaison but not actually happening sufficiently 07:38:31 <fantasai> Judy: might be a helpful mode, would be careful about over-relying on it 07:38:33 <MichaelC> q+ to suggest I interpret horizontal champion role as procedural 07:38:36 <fantasai> Judy: third thing, from some discussions Team-side 07:38:44 <fantasai> Judy: I share the perspective that improved tooling is essential 07:38:54 <fantasai> Judy: I would really like to see that as a stronger piece of this proposal 07:39:00 <fantasai> Judy: particularly as we move towards a more agile approach 07:39:09 <fantasai> Judy: capturing granular changes like feature changes 07:39:17 <fantasai> Judy: requesting changes discretely 07:39:23 <fantasai> Judy: please let us know if we broke osmehting 07:39:40 <fantasai> r12a: about champions not functioning correctly, expect that 07:39:43 <fantasai> r12a: but better than what it is 07:39:47 <addison> q? 07:39:51 <fantasai> r12a: if someone does a good job or half good job, better than nothing 07:40:05 <fantasai> Judy: we tried this with a11y early on, and in some cases was more harmful than not 07:40:09 <fantasai> Judy: so be careful 07:40:16 <fantasai> Judy: that champion needs to be well plugged-in 07:40:24 <fantasai> Judy: and not give impression than they can give the check off 07:40:28 <addison> ack cwilso 07:40:28 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to describe tie-in to incubations 07:40:34 <fantasai> Judy: we have used this model and it failed significantly on multiple specifications 07:40:47 <chaals> q+ to ask for usable change tracking to be emphasised more 07:40:49 <fantasai> cwilso: Hi, Chris Wilson, Google, co-chair WICT and ? 07:40:58 <fantasai> cwilso: Horizontal chapmions in a WG is going to be really hard to get work 07:41:02 <fantasai> cwilso: really hard to get it to work 07:41:06 <xfq> s/WICT and ?/WICG and Immersive Web WG/ 07:41:11 <fantasai> cwilso: large group like CSS, might want to appoint someone 07:41:18 <addison> s/chapmions/champions/ 07:41:21 <fantasai> cwilso: but generally going to need to make sure chairs and editors do that 07:41:22 <addison> q? 07:41:27 <fantasai> cwilso: everyone needs to do it 07:41:33 <fantasai> r12a: if chair or editor is the person? 07:41:42 <fantasai> cwilso: Pushing onto a role, can be improtant or not 07:41:52 <fantasai> cwilso: making sure chairs and editors take it on as a responsibiltiy, more likely to happen 07:41:57 <fantasai> cwilso: ties with previous conversation with PRivacy 07:42:02 <fantasai> cwilso: emphasis on tooling, totally agree with 07:42:17 <fantasai> cwilso: more you can give developers of the standards the tools, principles, training to do this work themselves 07:42:21 <fantasai> cwilso: have it be part of the process 07:42:25 <fantasai> cwilso: that's more effective 07:42:29 <fantasai> cwilso: particularly education 07:42:39 <fantasai> cwilso: not replacement for engaging with HR groups, but will help be more productive 07:42:43 <fantasai> cwilso: side comment from WICG 07:42:57 <fantasai> cwilso: In process of migrating to WG, we request HR, particularly self-review 07:43:03 <fantasai> cwilso: so triggers even before FPWD 07:43:13 <fantasai> cwilso: ask for a11y review, maybe ask for help on that 07:43:19 <fantasai> cwilso: even earlier might be a good plan to have that conversation 07:43:22 <Judy> s/well plugged-in/well plugged-in to the relevant center of expertise/ 07:43:27 <fantasai> cwilso: not blanket true for all HR, but for some is appropriate 07:43:39 <fantasai> r12a: didn't think we should do HR at that stage, mainly because we don't have bandwidth to do it 07:43:48 <fantasai> cwilso: My concern was be careful what you ask for 07:44:03 <fantasai> r12a: the self-review seemed a good compromise, be prompted where to ask for help 07:44:05 <fantasai> cwilso: as a chair... 07:44:19 <fantasai> cwilso: had a really illuminating conversation in TAG about a11y and what it might mean in WebXR 07:44:30 <addison> ack weiler 07:44:31 <Zakim> weiler, you wanted to respond to Leonie re: "best attempt by both groups" and to comment on "review champions" 07:44:34 <fantasai> cwilso: not that I've ignored a11y in my career but havne't thought about it in that way, and hard to capture sometimes 07:44:44 <fantasai> weiler: Two things 07:44:49 <fantasai> weiler: firs tis about review champions 07:45:02 <fantasai> weiler: IETF has "document ?" whose job is to push the document through the process 07:45:14 <Bert> s/?/shepherd/ 07:45:16 <fantasai> weiler: when I hear you talk about HR champions, sounds like micro-managing 07:45:23 <fantasai> weiler: unless you're saying that's the contact person 07:45:28 <fantasai> r12a: yes 07:45:32 <fantasai> weiler: need tooling 07:45:34 <addison> q? 07:45:47 <fantasai> weiler: tink said, if can't reach consensus, and groups have made best effort 07:46:02 <fantasai> weiler: I've seen in PING, groups don't make a good effort 07:46:10 <fantasai> weiler: I've seen firm positions and not much effort at consensus 07:46:24 <fantasai> weiler: often because review requested too late... 07:46:32 <fantasai> tink: how is that different from other disagreement? 07:46:37 <fantasai> weiler: I think because we're an outside group 07:46:45 <fantasai> weiler: lack of consensus within WG is more likely to get resolved 07:46:50 <chaals> q+ janina 07:47:00 <fantasai> tink: So in cases like that, we'd trust the Director to look at the issue and say "not acceptable" 07:47:18 <fantasai> dsinger: Wg writes the transition request, so it can downplay the disagreement 07:47:27 <fantasai> addison: If you feel that the WG is not listneing to you 07:47:31 <fantasai> addison: and historically there's this issue 07:47:37 <fantasai> addison: where we had to speak up about it 07:47:47 <fantasai> addison: it's rare in our case, we usually do a good job of workign out misunderstnadings 07:47:57 <fantasai> addison: but if group says nevermind, and we say we minde 07:47:57 <addison> ack dbaron 07:48:28 <fantasai> dbaron: Bunch of what TAG does these days is design review which is similar to HR 07:48:34 <dbaron> https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers 07:48:35 <fantasai> dbaron: we get about 2 review requests per week 07:48:43 <fantasai> dbaron: one thing we found very helpful is asking for explainers 07:48:56 <fantasai> dbaron: we want not just a spec, but a document that says why it's doing what it's doing, how it helps users 07:49:06 <fantasai> dbaron: in many cases we're only reviewing the explainer and not the spec 07:49:08 <weiler> [perhaps docs should be self-explaining?] 07:49:15 <fantasai> dbaron: because we don't have bandwidth to read eveyr spec in W3C 07:49:17 <weiler> q? 07:49:27 <fantasai> dbaron: sometimes we do ask for more info than initially in the explainer 07:49:32 <fantasai> dbaron: but seems to work well 07:49:44 <fantasai> dsinger: Differnet TAG members have different opinions 07:49:49 <fantasai> s/dsinger/dbaron/ 07:50:03 <fantasai> dbaron: Some ppl think explainer should be in document, some that it shoudl be separate; I don't care much personally 07:50:05 <hadleybeeman> Q? 07:50:12 <fantasai> dbaron: we've started aggressively using labels to track these things 07:50:14 <Bert> s/Differnet/Different/ 07:50:21 <hadleybeeman> Q+ to comment on explainers and why they help us 07:50:33 <fantasai> dbaron: one thing we started doing recently is labelling them as "Resolution Satisfied" "resolution unsatisfied" "resolution timed-out" 07:50:50 <fantasai> dbaron: In many cases we asked some questions, and two month later no reply 07:51:02 <fantasai> dbaron: We're trying, more than other groups, to do review at an early stage in the process 07:51:15 <fantasai> dbaron: we're doing it early enough in the process that ppl might abandon work on the project 07:51:24 <fantasai> dbaron: in case where questions weren't answered, we assume they stopped working on it 07:51:30 <fantasai> dbaron: and in case continuing work, we hope they'd get back to us 07:51:35 <hober> q? 07:51:38 <weiler> ack had 07:51:38 <Zakim> hadleybeeman, you wanted to comment on explainers and why they help us 07:51:46 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: Worth saying, explainer is not just summary the spec, but thinking behind the spec 07:52:11 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: we look at their explainer, shows alternatives they considered and why decided not to pursue 07:52:12 <pes> pes has joined #i18n 07:52:24 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: we also are looking for how this particular or feature will interact with others 07:52:36 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: useful to see that author has thought through implications for other areas of work 07:52:44 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: so explainer is thinking, how I ended up with this as a spec 07:52:51 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: contextual information vs longer technical spec 07:53:00 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: thinking of conversations I've had with colleagues about i18n and a11y 07:53:08 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: you have asked parallel types of quesitons 07:53:25 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: are you aware that this has effects for another type of user, are you aware this increase fingerprinting surface? 07:53:39 <fantasai> hadleybeeman: other questions can put into a template, save you a lot of work at beginning of reviews 07:54:02 <fantasai> r12a: can we get your explainers you get? 07:54:11 <fantasai> dbaron: you can set up a bot to watch our repo? 07:54:26 <fantasai> martin: Can TAG forward us issues? 07:54:47 <addison> q? 07:54:48 <fantasai> Dan: You can look at our repo. All of our review requests come in our design review repo 07:54:52 <fantasai> Dan: we're struggling to keep up with this 07:54:58 <fantasai> Dan: I really like idea of dashboard, btw 07:55:07 <fantasai> Dan: where we track how different HR reviews have taken place 07:55:11 <fantasai> Dan: one problem we have right now is 07:55:20 <Yves> https://github.com/w3ctag/w3ctag.github.io/blob/master/explainers.md 07:55:28 <fantasai> Dan: we're not getting enough, although we're swamped with reviews, we're not getting enough requests from W3C WGs 07:55:35 <fantasai> Dan: good case study with WebXR 07:55:46 <fantasai> Dan: WebXR put review request, TAG came back with feedback, good discussion 07:56:02 <fantasai> Dan: Just attended the WG meeting, feedback was resolved, and we had good feedback from editors andchairs 07:56:12 <fantasai> Dan: They wrote a great explainer, wrote a great checklist on securit and privacy 07:56:18 <fantasai> Dan: We hope most W3C WGs can do 07:56:21 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #i18n 07:56:22 <addison> q? 07:56:36 <fantasai> Dan: Not because we want to have power, but because we want to help the W3C WGs 07:56:40 <Judy> q+ 07:56:46 <fantasai> Dan: But we do have an explainer explainer, which explains how to write an explainer 07:56:48 <dbaron> https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers 07:56:55 <jeff_> present+ jeff 07:57:10 <fantasai> Dan: We have run into problem where some people think that the explainer is only for the TAG review 07:57:33 <fantasai> Dan: and we're very explicit that the explainer is for you, and to help you document what your thing is for the developers you're building for 07:57:39 <hadleybeeman> Present+ hadleybeeman 07:57:41 <fantasai> Dan: Not for the TAG only 07:57:51 <cwilso> Q? 07:57:56 <addison> ack tink 07:58:07 <fantasai> tink: Question about tooling 07:58:15 <fantasai> tink: i18n uses very useful GH labelling system 07:58:20 <fantasai> tink: thoughts about using that or something similar? 07:58:29 <Jc> Jc has joined #i18n 07:58:34 <fantasai> tink: from WG co-chair with lots of spec, useful for getting incremental flow of getting review and help 07:58:40 <addison> ack michaelc 07:58:40 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest I interpret horizontal champion role as procedural 07:58:49 <fantasai> MichaelC: we've been talking about that, and expectation of somebody with experties 07:59:00 <fantasai> Janina: I think that status dashboard would be very valuable 07:59:07 <fantasai> Janina: Tail end of process is improtant 07:59:15 <fantasai> Janina: Are our comments incorporated, we don't know 07:59:27 <fantasai> Janina: If we have some way discoverable in dash board, that would be sueful 07:59:27 <addison> ? 07:59:29 <addison> q? 07:59:37 <plh> q+ 07:59:41 <fantasai> Janina: if Director is aware, that's important 07:59:48 <fantasai> Janina: strong +1 to explainers 07:59:56 <addison> ack janina 08:00:05 <fantasai> Janina: especially for a11y, if there is no explanation in plain English what this API does 08:00:20 <fantasai> janina: Does group even now if they satisfied their goals? How can they tell? 08:00:44 <fantasai> MichaelC: back to HR champion, my intepretation was that is was procedural that it would make sure that HR was done and outreach happened at the right time 08:00:49 <fantasai> MichaelC: remind WG that they have to do this 08:01:02 <fantasai> MichaelC: chair or editor could play that role, but doesn't have to be chair or editor, sometimes useful to not be 08:01:03 <weiler> [IETF's description of the document shepherd: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858 ] 08:01:14 <fantasai> MichaelC: goal is just to make sure the review happen, not to be the expert doing the review 08:01:29 <fantasai> MichaelC: I think that might address some concerns that were raised about 08:01:37 <fantasai> r12a: could be editor could eanybody, just a concept 08:01:41 <pes> pes has joined #i18n 08:01:48 <fantasai> r12a: issue is WG too busy doing their work, forget about HR until last minut 08:01:58 <addison> ack chaals 08:01:58 <Zakim> chaals, you wanted to ask for usable change tracking to be emphasised more 08:02:02 <addison> q? 08:02:03 <fantasai> r12a: just having somebody who takes responsibility for keeping this in mind 08:02:22 <fantasai> chaals: On the having a champion, editors are often quite experienced, chairs are often experienced 08:02:29 <fantasai> chaals: we should push W3C to help chairs get better at doing this 08:02:40 <fantasai> chaals: chairs to understand process and get good at it 08:02:52 <fantasai> chaals: there are different magic points for review for different groups 08:02:58 <fantasai> chaals: Privacy, very early in design 08:03:03 <fantasai> chaals: and very valuable to be very early in the thing 08:03:14 <fantasai> chaals: like TAG saying this is wrong way to fit in with other things 08:03:25 <fantasai> chaals: for large specs i18n and a11y issues, can be easily localized 08:03:32 <fantasai> chaals: can work on them later, as features going in 08:03:41 <fantasai> chaals: ? had feature freeze about 6 months before CR 08:03:59 <fantasai> chaals: it's a roughly appropriate point to look at and see which bits worth tracking 08:04:11 <fantasai> chaals: consequent request is we should push really hard for readable human-friendly change logs 08:04:14 <fantasai> chaals: what actually changed? 08:04:17 <addison> q? 08:04:26 <fantasai> chaals: a GitHub record of every commit is totally useless for a review request 08:04:29 <pes> pes has joined #i18n 08:04:40 <fantasai> chaals: groups that come with such things, should be told to go away and build a change log 08:04:44 <fantasai> dsinger: tooling can help 08:04:49 <addison> ack Judy 08:04:49 <fantasai> chaals, plh: not really a substitute 08:04:55 <fantasai> Judy: combining these 08:05:06 <fantasai> Judy: going back to status dashboard 08:05:07 <weiler> [change logs are most useful when manually (and thoughtfully) generated] 08:05:09 <fantasai> Judy: tie to granular tooling 08:05:14 <fantasai> Judy: review whole spec 08:05:19 <fantasai> Judy: some team side discussion 08:05:34 <dsinger> q+ to mention standard tags for ‘degree of change’ 08:05:41 <fantasai> Judy: any new feature commit should have its own very succinct explainer, this is the meaning or intention of the feature 08:05:45 <karl> karl has joined #i18n 08:05:52 <addison> q+ "magical thinking" 08:05:57 <fantasai> Judy: tying dashboard with feature with explainer could help things alot 08:06:05 <fantasai> Judy: say for the record, a lot of the discussion leading to this meeting 08:06:15 <fantasai> Judy: was listed under a bad title 08:06:17 <chaals> s/plh:/ not really a substitiute/tooling should help a lot. But we can and should work out the things people need to do, without *needing* tools to make it possible - they make it more efficient so more effective 08:06:40 <fantasai> Judy: would like to relabel under a more positive title 08:06:52 <fantasai> Judy: goal is to not have a delay due to HR 08:07:01 <addison> ack plh 08:07:16 <fantasai> plh: Wrt tooling, want to fix sooner rather than later 08:07:20 <fantasai> plh: what I can help, would be welcome 08:07:27 <fantasai> plh: NOth everything can be resolved by tooling 08:07:35 <fantasai> plh: Changelog e.g. i snot something that can be automatically generated 08:07:47 <fantasai> plh: ?? group labels edits substantive/editorial, for example 08:07:49 <addison> s/i snot/is not/ 08:07:53 <fantasai> plh: can go through commits to see ones that are not substantial 08:07:56 <fantasai> plh: sometimes not good enough 08:07:57 <addison> q? 08:08:09 <fantasai> plh: Ralph and I sit down to look at transition requests 08:08:14 <fantasai> plh: 30min to several days / week 08:08:16 <r12a> q+ 08:08:27 <fantasai> plh: we have to figure out e.g. was there a horizontal review, how long, sometimes we get it right sometimes get it wrong 08:08:37 <addison> ack dsinger 08:08:37 <Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to mention standard tags for ‘degree of change’ 08:08:38 <fantasai> plh: so ehlping to understand status would be veyr helpful in our day-to-day work as well 08:08:44 <chaals> s/??/payments 08:08:47 <fantasai> dsinger: putting together what plh and chaals said 08:08:54 <fantasai> dsinger: I get automated reports 08:08:57 <xfq> ack next 08:08:59 <fantasai> dsinger: not very helpful 08:09:03 <chaals> q- "magical thinking" 08:09:05 <chaals> q+ addison 08:09:10 <fantasai> dsinger: want to know is this adding a new feature, is this clean up, is this fixing a bug, etc. 08:09:26 <fantasai> dsinger: chairs can take that and summarize what happend since last review 08:09:33 <fantasai> dsinger: won't get done or won't get done well 08:09:37 <chaals> s/? had feature freeze/DID WG expects a feature freeze 08:09:43 <addison> q? 08:09:47 <fantasai> dsinger: small amount of tooling can make a major difference 08:10:00 <addison> ack r12a 08:10:10 <fantasai> r12a: If we're doing review of incremental features, I don't want to be reading GH change commits 08:10:20 <fantasai> r12a: I want to read the document, be able to scroll up/down and see the context 08:10:38 <fantasai> r12a: if there was a way to get labels into document itself, and show hwich part of document is major change or describe why that feature was added by clicking ab utton... I don't know 08:10:45 <fantasai> r12a: that would be more useful for a review group than looking through code 08:10:48 <addison> ack addison 08:11:01 <fantasai> MichaelC: change log + diff tool? 08:11:51 <weiler> s/MichaelC/weiler/ 08:12:16 <chaals> fantasai: HTMLdiff can get pretty hard to read over a solid body of changes large and small. Gettgin usable changelogs is hard- we do it manually in CSS, and they are more broad as we make big changes early on, later tehre are more details. 08:12:27 <chaals> … don't know of a way to get something useful that is automated. 08:12:35 <fantasai> MichaelC: We do feature development in branches, and do squash merge for the feature 08:12:45 <fantasai> MichaelC: and write a changelog-appropriate entry 08:12:50 <fantasai> MichaelC: but not work for everybody 08:13:23 <chaals> [I don't know of a changelog that is generated by tools and is helpful] 08:13:34 <fantasai> addison: a lot of ideas here, would be more heavyweight for WGs if we did all of these things 08:13:52 <fantasai> addison: I struggle to get just on a regular basis good checkpointing and acknowledgement of our system 08:14:01 <fantasai> addison: given limitations of our tooling, it's reasonable 08:14:08 <fantasai> addison: we have to manually track after the fact 08:14:21 <fantasai> addison: major work in TPAC is going through all of our open issues 08:14:54 <fantasai> addison: I'm very concerned about getting to a point where we can have reasonable handoffs and reasonably clean reviews 08:15:08 <fantasai> addison: work through issues with WGs, because WGs want to get to done, and we want them to get to done in an effective way 08:15:36 <fantasai> addison: we're past time, btw 08:16:04 <fantasai> Judy: what are you wanting for outcomes? 08:16:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 08:16:13 <fantasai> r12a: we need to pull out various suggestions and circulate to all the groups 08:16:35 <fantasai> r12a: wasn't looking to work everything out here, just wanted to share ideas, and think we've been doing that successfully 08:16:44 <fantasai> chaals: Suggest sharing to chairs, and framing as open discussion 08:17:03 <fantasai> chaals: please, as a group of chairs, provide a horizontal review of this horizontal review propsoal 08:17:19 <fantasai> dsinger: I'd like to work out next steps 08:17:34 <fantasai> dsinger: don't want to keep talking forever, make some concrete improvements in the area 08:17:42 <fantasai> plh: next steps, some tooling that needs to be done 08:18:41 <chaals> fantaasai: we need te checklists all in one place, and it needs to be clear this is part of each transition. 08:18:43 <r12a> need a central location for self-review checklists etc so that people can fihd it 08:19:00 <chaals> … so the transition checklist needs to mention them at each point. 08:19:39 <chaals> … and I want actual checkboxes, rather than having to copy and paste stuff from place to place. 08:20:17 <chaals> … and there is a lot of material there. Don't stick it at the bottom of every spec. 08:20:21 <fantasai> r12a: I showed a process that we want to use in i18n and fits our resource levels 08:20:27 <fantasai> r12a: you might come up with differnet processes 08:20:29 <Judy> q+ 08:20:33 <chaals> q+ 08:20:35 <dsinger> q+ 08:20:36 <fantasai> r12a: shoudl we try to homogenize? 08:20:44 <addison> ack judy 08:20:53 <fantasai> r12a: atm just need to get things done, but woul dbe good to have an overarchign framework 08:20:59 <fantasai> Judy: think your model has a lot of good stuff in it 08:21:12 <fantasai> Judy: one concern is that good encouragements not become absolutes for groups that would not benefit 08:21:20 <fantasai> Judy: but how do we make sure something happens and there's some accountability 08:21:33 <fantasai> Judy: when tink was working through process, think it assumes some of those as absolutes so may be wrong 08:21:49 <fantasai> Judy: so need a process that gives multiple paths towards the same goals, but ensures that there's some accountablity to have the right outcome 08:21:56 <fantasai> Judy: supported by really good tooling 08:22:01 <addison> ack chaals 08:22:21 <fantasai> chaals: I don't think that we will homogenize completely 08:22:31 <fantasai> chaals: let's have each group come up with how they want to work 08:22:40 <fantasai> chaals: and then figure out commonality 08:22:58 <fantasai> chaals: as editor/chair, want some consolidation 08:23:03 <fantasai> chaals: much easier 08:23:12 <fantasai> chaals: so let's make these lists and see how far apart they are 08:23:24 <fantasai> tink: came up when I did HR review of HR for the Ab 08:23:32 <chaals> q? 08:23:33 <fantasai> tink: found there's hardly any commonality among HR groups 08:23:40 <fantasai> plh: 3 components of HR 08:23:47 <fantasai> plh: tracking labels pinging each other, tooling can help 08:23:50 <Judy> q+ 08:23:57 <fantasai> plh: 2nd component is asking for wide review 08:24:07 <fantasai> plh: I tell Team Contacts where to send email / file issue 08:24:15 <fantasai> plh: sometimes doesn't get done, because WGs forget 08:24:27 <fantasai> plh: if there's one point to send people, much more likely to happen 08:24:30 <Judy> q+ to suggest a few other potential common elements 08:24:37 <fantasai> plh: 3rd component is actual review and engagement itself 08:24:46 <fantasai> plh: those are 3 main components that we need to improve 08:24:50 <addison> ack dsinger 08:24:53 <chaals> q+ r12a 08:25:06 <fantasai> dsinger: not hearing any push back that we have sets of standard labels 08:25:16 <fantasai> dsinger: that when you go to FPWD they are in your repo 08:25:23 <fantasai> dsinger: HR groups will get issues tagged with their labels 08:25:32 <fantasai> dsinger: maybe automatic reports can filter by lables 08:25:36 <fantasai> dsinger: seems easy to do 08:25:43 <addison> ack Judy 08:25:43 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to suggest a few other potential common elements 08:25:44 <fantasai> plh: i18n-tracker we can do for all repositories that we track 08:25:54 <fantasai> Judy: other elements of commonality that are possible 08:25:59 <fantasai> Judy: so let's discuss and find 08:26:11 <fantasai> Judy: I think idea of self-review, having materials to facilitate self-review 08:26:14 <fantasai> Judy: all reviews should have this 08:26:17 <chaals> [chair training] 08:26:22 <fantasai> Judy: supports scalability and efficient use of resources 08:26:39 <fantasai> Judy: and having a clear contact point to follow up with once groups think they're finished with self review and want to shout out for help 08:26:48 <fantasai> Judy: make that as homogenized and centralized as possible 08:27:17 <addison> ack r12a 08:27:17 <christine> q+ 08:27:24 <christine> q- 08:27:24 <fantasai> fantasai: +1 to that, I can never remember which mailing list to ask for a11y review 08:27:41 <fantasai> r12a: so this far exceeded my expectations in temrs of ppl who showed up and engagement 08:27:59 <fantasai> r12a: quite big and quite important, but things won't move forward if we just go away and continue as usual 08:28:05 <fantasai> r12a: need more regular communication among the roups 08:28:09 <fantasai> s/roups/groups 08:28:12 <fantasai> r12a: how do we do that? 08:28:27 <hober> q? 08:28:27 <fantasai> christine: Question, one of the things I don't think we've discussed, survey 08:28:42 <fantasai> christine: sometimes when we're doing PING reviews, the different WGs ask for issue sto be raised in their repository 08:28:46 <fantasai> christine: which makes sense 08:28:51 <fantasai> christine: also want to keep track of them ourselves 08:28:56 <fantasai> christine: so we discussed doing mirrored issues 08:29:09 <fantasai> christine: you can do this ovely dashboard thing if it's all within the same repo 08:29:16 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #i18n 08:29:30 <fantasai> chaals: plh just promised to duplicate the i18n tools for ou 08:29:47 <fantasai> r12a: you create one tracking issue, and it links to the actual discussion in the WG repo 08:29:59 <fantasai> addison: It might be useful for us to do a demo of what we do at some point (not now) 08:30:06 <fantasai> addison: Also useful to see how other groups operate 08:30:11 <fantasai> plh: a11y is also quite advanced 08:30:17 <chaals> s/for ou/for you 08:30:22 <fantasai> addison: this is a closed circle, behooves us to think about what chairs and WGs reactions will be 08:30:35 <fantasai> addison: know that some participate in no-horizontal groups, but most people here are HR 08:30:44 <fantasai> addison: so also listen to their concerns 08:30:57 <fantasai> addison: I haven't made any progress in changing their behavior 08:31:06 <fantasai> MichaelC: I was made aware of this meeitng by team-horizonta 08:31:12 <fantasai> MichaelC: if we set up public-horizontal 08:31:27 <fantasai> MichaelC: invite chairs, maybe that's good to continue discussion 08:31:49 <fantasai> Judy: ... 08:31:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 08:32:01 <fantasai> r12a: need some way to congeal and contineu 08:32:08 <fantasai> dsinger: Process CG willing to host discussions 08:32:21 <fantasai> plh: Chaals mentioned chair training, happy to do it if I know what to train them for 08:32:39 <fantasai> plh: All I can say to Team contacts today is to point at /Guide 08:32:57 <fantasai> plh: so proper chair training session on HR, something that won't change 6 months later 08:33:08 <Bert> s/contineu/continue/ 08:33:19 <fantasai> chaals: point people at /Guide which doesn't say what to do 08:33:27 <fantasai> chaals: then tell them to edit to say what to do 08:33:28 <xfq> https://github.com/w3c/Guide 08:33:43 <chaals1> chaals1 has joined #i18n 08:33:56 <fantasai> fantasai: There's a lot of documentation on w3.org, hard to be aware of what exists 08:34:01 <fantasai> r12a: all done? 08:34:04 <fantasai> Meeting closed. 08:34:05 <chaals1> [plaplapla] 08:35:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 08:48:09 <Yves> Yves has left #i18n 08:59:30 <yoshiroy> yoshiroy has joined #i18n 09:02:01 <yoshiroy> yoshiroy has left #i18n 09:04:57 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #i18n 10:08:33 <chaals> chaals has joined #i18n 11:16:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #i18n 11:55:19 <addison> addison has joined #i18n 12:05:45 <karl> karl has joined #i18n 12:11:58 <xfq> xfq has joined #i18n 13:10:41 <atsushi> atsushi has joined #i18n 13:20:03 <myles> myles has joined #i18n 13:31:14 <r12a> r12a has joined #i18n 23:47:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #i18n 23:47:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-irc 23:47:34 <karl> karl has joined #i18n 23:47:55 <addison> Meeting: Internationalization WG 2019 TPAC 23:48:02 <addison> Chair: Addison Phillips 23:48:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison 23:48:12 <Bert> present+ 23:48:18 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #i18n 23:48:25 <addison> present+ 23:48:28 <addison> present+ Bert 23:48:34 <addison> present+ David 23:48:38 <addison> present+ Atsushi 23:49:37 <addison> rrsagent, bye 23:49:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items