IRC log of i18n on 2019-09-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:03:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #i18n
00:03:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-irc
00:04:02 [addison]
Meeting: TPAC 2019 Internationalization (I18N) WG
00:04:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
00:04:15 [addison]
Chair: Addison Phillips
00:04:47 [chaals]
chaals has joined #i18n
00:05:46 [addison]
present+
00:05:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
00:06:24 [addison]
rrsagent, set logs world
00:07:25 [addison]
zakim, who is here?
00:07:26 [Zakim]
Present: addison
00:07:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see chaals, RRSAgent, marcosc, xfq_, Zakim, addison, agendabot, sangwhan, florian, bigbluehat, littledan, koji, trackbot
00:07:46 [addison]
present+ Martin, Richard, David, Atsushi
00:07:53 [addison]
present+ Jason (observer)
00:07:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
00:08:17 [atsushi]
atsushi has joined #i18n
00:08:35 [r12a]
r12a has joined #i18n
00:10:26 [r12a-again]
r12a-again has joined #i18n
00:11:51 [myles]
myles has joined #i18n
00:12:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
00:12:32 [addison]
rrsagent, set logs world
00:12:56 [addison]
topic: https://www.w3.org/wiki/I18N_2019_TPAC
00:13:29 [DavidClarke]
DavidClarke has joined #i18n
00:14:18 [duerst]
duerst has joined #i18n
00:15:19 [jason]
jason has joined #i18n
00:16:31 [addison]
topic: Introductions
00:20:13 [addison]
present+ Bert
00:21:47 [addison]
scribenick: DavidClarke
00:22:09 [addison]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/I18N_2019_TPAC
00:22:18 [DavidClarke]
addison: Agenda does not lookpacked yet, but will become so
00:23:24 [DavidClarke]
r12a-again: privacy Ping group will be coming to I18n this afternoon
00:23:35 [yoshiroy]
yoshiroy has joined #i18n
00:24:02 [yoshiroy]
yoshiroy has left #i18n
00:24:15 [DavidClarke]
r12a-again: work through wiki page and discuss notification, preferably straighh after
00:24:53 [addison]
present+ PLH
00:25:13 [DavidClarke]
r12a-again: also some discussion with accessibilty likely
00:25:26 [DavidClarke]
present+
00:26:13 [DavidClarke]
r12a-again: discussion on tooling after 4 pm meeting
00:27:31 [DavidClarke]
PLH: warned that tooling may change version of XML - beware of consequences
00:28:33 [DavidClarke]
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 [DavidClarke]
r12a-again: ideally fantasia should be there, too
00:30:22 [DavidClarke]
addison: what other groups do we need to talk to
00:31:18 [addison]
action: addison: ping rossen about time to meet CSS about text
00:31:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-826 - Ping rossen about time to meet css about text [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23].
00:31:21 [DavidClarke]
... CSS 10am Tuesday, so ping Rossen (co-chair CSS) to confirm availability
00:32:19 [DavidClarke]
r12a-again: Thursday - Marie-Claire I18n course development
00:33:39 [DavidClarke]
Addison: What else do we aim to accomplish? Agenda backlog, and very old tracker issues
00:34:17 [Bert]
Bert has joined #i18n
00:34:25 [DavidClarke]
addison: needs to schedule time with accessibilty iso-639
00:34:53 [DavidClarke]
addison: Should be invite ivan?
00:35:20 [addison]
action: addison: contact wendy reed regarding treatment of language in pub manifest
00:35:21 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-827 - Contact wendy reed regarding treatment of language in pub manifest [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23].
00:35:34 [DavidClarke]
r12a: heis very busy, please talk to Wendy Reid on change of language in pub-manifest
00:36:33 [DavidClarke]
addison: so probably 1 more cross over meeting. What about JSON LD?
00:36:59 [DavidClarke]
r12a: what is current status of JSON-LD?
00:38:03 [DavidClarke]
status update scheduled for 9:45
00:39:20 [DavidClarke]
addison: Article on well formed versus valid rtl, and visit document development backlog. Charmodnorm has been published, others still need work.
00:39:53 [DavidClarke]
addison: We have an HTML DOM spec review.
00:40:10 [DavidClarke]
Bert: Not reviewed it yet.
00:40:33 [DavidClarke]
addison: make time to talk about HTML this morning.
00:40:40 [DavidClarke]
addison: AOB
00:41:05 [addison]
-- exeuent PLH --
00:41:37 [addison]
Topic: JSON-LD
00:41:47 [DavidClarke]
jason: Here to see how WG works
00:42:22 [jason]
jason has joined #i18n
00:42:52 [DavidClarke]
addison: There are a number of specs that have ha lack of standardisation about language handling.
00:42:55 [addison]
https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/#
00:43:06 [DavidClarke]
... Created string meta issues to discuss
00:43:18 [jason]
jason has joined #i18n
00:44:05 [DavidClarke]
... 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]
jlinehan has joined #i18n
00:44:31 [DavidClarke]
... Not much support, as reluctant to reopen existing specifications
00:44:57 [DavidClarke]
... That may not go forwards. There are some other proposals.
00:45:30 [DavidClarke]
r12a: The current proposal is to start a community group.
00:46:59 [DavidClarke]
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 [DavidClarke]
... system
00:47:55 [DavidClarke]
... CSS has gone to a module form which enable changing separate parts
00:48:24 [DavidClarke]
... is this differntial spec viable in W3C rules?
00:48:53 [DavidClarke]
... People don't like to reopen the spec. Why technical or editting issues.
00:49:28 [DavidClarke]
addison: Limiting the scope often pushes back to I18n group
00:49:49 [DavidClarke]
duerst: Who will do work and accept the result of changes
00:50:48 [DavidClarke]
addison: Mostly and existion of existing specifications. Side effect is that the core spec is spread across many specifications concerns community.
00:51:55 [DavidClarke]
... 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 [DavidClarke]
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 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
00:55:35 [DavidClarke]
... Related to that, i18n needs to complete document on string-meta
00:56:04 [r12a]
https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/
00:57:18 [DavidClarke]
... Occasionally we lose focus. We need better prioritisation.
00:58:16 [DavidClarke]
addison: with only 2 people editting documents and having full time jobs it is difficult.
00:59:19 [DavidClarke]
DavidClarke: Maybe try to do it Agile backlog style, with completion of some better than many partially completed docs.
00:59:59 [DavidClarke]
r12a: We need better focus
01:00:30 [DavidClarke]
addison: We backed off string-meta after meetings with other stakeholders
01:01:56 [DavidClarke]
... 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 [DavidClarke]
r12a: It is a complicated topic, but we have rewritten it to take on some of these concerns.
01:03:25 [DavidClarke]
addison: I use it at work for reference, even though not published, yet.
01:04:00 [DavidClarke]
bert: It is longer than I expected
01:04:53 [DavidClarke]
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 [addison]
action: addison: ask group to read string-meta and provide feedback
01:05:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-828 - Ask group to read string-meta and provide feedback [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23].
01:05:38 [DavidClarke]
r12a: i18n WG - please re-read it by tomorrow for comments and discussion
01:07:48 [DavidClarke]
r12a: In general, what else shal we do to propogate the bidi issues? Do we go to Ralph?
01:08:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
01:08:26 [DavidClarke]
duerst: Talk to everyone, but then nobody may feel responsible
01:08:32 [atsushi]
s/shal/shall/
01:09:27 [DavidClarke]
r12a: It would be useful to speak at the plenary, but we can't do that.
01:09:40 [jlinehan_]
jlinehan_ has joined #i18n
01:10:08 [DavidClarke]
duerst: We could visit interested groups at the plenary and split up to cover more ground.
01:12:59 [DavidClarke]
atsushi: could it be raised at the Chairs lunch or breakfast?
01:13:20 [addison]
action: addison: raise string-meta problem at chairs lunch
01:13:21 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-829 - Raise string-meta problem at chairs lunch [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23].
01:13:44 [DavidClarke]
r12a: short demo of how it breaks with latin characters at the start of Arabic text
01:14:16 [DavidClarke]
r12a: Already has slide presnetation which talks about it.
01:14:31 [r12a]
https://www.w3.org/International/talks/1810-paris/#metadata
01:15:31 [DavidClarke]
s/presnetation/presentation/
01:24:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
01:26:23 [DavidClarke]
r12a: Summarize: Addison will look into chairs' lunch. I18n will read and finish off string-meta, subject to other priorities.
01:27:24 [DavidClarke]
Addison: We are not the people to do the work for JSON-LD as they will not own it.
01:27:38 [DavidClarke]
... all present agreed
01:28:17 [DavidClarke]
... should we ping TAG about it.
01:29:37 [DavidClarke]
r12a: They handed it off to Sangwan et al. Menu is interested.
01:29:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
01:30:41 [r12a]
r12a has joined #i18n
01:30:44 [Bert]
s/Sangwan/Sangwhan
01:30:52 [DavidClarke]
addison: adjourn for 20 minutes.
01:31:45 [r12a]
r12a has joined #i18n
01:34:55 [r12a-again]
r12a-again has joined #i18n
01:36:42 [r12a_]
r12a_ has joined #i18n
02:01:38 [addison]
addison has joined #i18n
02:02:45 [r12a]
r12a has joined #i18n
02:02:51 [r12a]
r12a has joined #i18n
02:02:51 [xfq_]
xfq_ has joined #i18n
02:04:17 [chaals]
chaals has joined #i18n
02:05:02 [xfq_]
xfq_ has joined #i18n
02:05:33 [addison]
Topic: Info Share
02:05:56 [DavidClarke]
DavidClarke has joined #i18n
02:05:59 [Bert]
scribe: Bert
02:05:59 [marcosc]
marcosc has joined #i18n
02:07:19 [Bert]
addison: We were scheduled tomorrow to meet CSS and WAI. Confirmed. Before and after lunch.
02:07:52 [Bert]
r12a: plh told me a11y folk looking at "bliss" symbols.
02:08:09 [Bert]
... He thought i18n might want to comment on it.
02:09:00 [Bert]
... it will put numbers in an "data-symbol" attribute that refer to bliss symbols.
02:09:24 [Bert]
... Can be applied to a word or phrase.
02:09:52 [Bert]
... Bliss symbols can be spaced differently depending on function.
02:10:00 [Bert]
... That might be a first issue.
02:10:42 [Bert]
... The symbols can be localized as well, e.g., switching verb noun order.
02:11:06 [Bert]
... Haven't thought it through, but might need some language labeling.
02:12:11 [Bert]
... "data-symbol" also seems kind of generic.
02:12:36 [Bert]
DavidClarke: "data-bliss"?
02:12:58 [atsushi]
atsushi has joined #i18n
02:13:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
02:13:34 [jlinehan]
jlinehan has joined #i18n
02:13:51 [Bert]
r12a: I have some links:
02:13:58 [duerst]
duerst has joined #i18n
02:14:06 [r12a]
--
02:14:13 [r12a]
The symbol attribute in [1] identifies the concept for symbols, eg
02:14:13 [r12a]
<span data-symbol="13621 12324 17511">cup of Tea</span>
02:14:13 [r12a]
The numbers are the same references numbers used in Bliss (BCI numbers):
02:14:15 [r12a]
http://www.blissymbolics.org/
02:14:17 [r12a]
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 [Bert]
RRSAgent, pointer?
02:14:17 [RRSAgent]
See https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-irc#T02-14-17-1
02:14:19 [r12a]
Philippe
02:14:21 [r12a]
[1] https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#symbol-explanation
02:14:23 [r12a]
--
02:15:08 [Bert]
r12a: The "Michael" is Michael Cooper, for a11y.
02:16:30 [Bert]
duerst: Spec says "copyright license from Bliss"...
02:17:04 [Bert]
R12a: Not sure how that works, but not sure that is _our_ problem.
02:17:35 [Bert]
duerst: Unicode might worry about that.
02:18:17 [addison]
action: addison: check with Unicode about the status of bliss symbol encoding
02:18:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-830 - Check with unicode about the status of bliss symbol encoding [on Addison Phillips - due 2019-09-23].
02:18:19 [Bert]
r12a: There is a proposal for Unicode from several years ago. We may need to do some liaising with them.
02:19:02 [addison]
action-826?
02:19:02 [trackbot]
action-826 -- Addison Phillips to Ping rossen about time to meet css about text -- due 2019-09-23 -- OPEN
02:19:02 [trackbot]
https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/826
02:19:08 [addison]
close action-826
02:19:08 [trackbot]
Closed action-826.
02:20:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
02:21:04 [Bert]
r12a: As brief summary, bliss is a kind of language, the symbols combine into compound words and sentences.
02:22:10 [Bert]
... 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 [Bert]
addison: Some 5000 authorized symbols, it says.
02:22:48 [Bert]
DavidClarke: Could it be used as a kind ALT text?
02:23:31 [Bert]
duerst: Yes, except that ALT is text instead of images, and this is images as alternative of text.
02:24:18 [Bert]
addison: Is a discussion with a11y already planned?
02:24:44 [Bert]
r12a: No, and we haven't read the spec yet. But could bring it up when we meet them on Thursday.
02:25:14 [Bert]
addison: OK, I'll put it on the agenda.
02:26:27 [Bert]
[Agenda planning, lunch scheduling...]
02:29:06 [Bert]
Ruby (with Makoto) is scheduled for 13:00, so lunch needs to be arranged around that.
02:31:48 [Bert]
So lunch at noon.
02:32:07 [atsushi]
go through html: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2019Sep/0017.html
02:32:39 [addison]
Topic: HTML issues in tracker
02:32:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/16-i18n-minutes.html addison
02:33:22 [addison]
https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/553
02:35:56 [chaals]
chaals has joined #i18n
02:38:14 [Bert]
addison: Issue was closed for W3C HTML5, because it was fixed. Is it not fixed in WhatWG?
02:38:29 [Bert]
... Seems it is not fixed.
02:39:20 [Bert]
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 [Bert]
addison: Maybe for a bi-languagal page?
02:40:24 [Bert]
DavidClarke: Seen examples of pages in Welsh and English, with short descriptions if both.
02:41:47 [Bert]
... If your prefered language is Welsh then Google could return you the Welsh description in the search result.
02:42:09 [Bert]
s/ if both/ in both/
02:43:25 [Bert]
... But of course, if your preference is Japanese, how does it select whether to show the Welsh or the English description?
02:44:19 [Bert]
jason: Wikipedia pages are strongly in one language. It's tied to the domain name.
02:44:51 [addison]
<html lang="en"><meta><meta lang=en>
02:45:09 [Bert]
DavidClarke: Descriptions with and without lang attributes.
02:47:21 [Bert]
Discussion about having multiple pages vs one page with multiple languages.
02:48:34 [Bert]
Bert: There can only be one <title>
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