18:31:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver
18:31:21 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/01/22-silver-irc
18:31:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:31:24 <Zakim> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
18:31:31 <jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
18:31:31 <jeanne> present:
18:31:31 <jeanne> chair: Shawn, jeanne
18:31:31 <jeanne> present+
18:31:32 <jeanne> zakim, clear agenda
18:31:32 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
18:31:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/22-silver-minutes.html jeanne
18:31:32 <jeanne> q?
18:31:32 <Zakim> agenda cleared
18:31:49 <Fazio> Hi, Jeanne!
18:32:12 <jeanne> agenda+ Publication of FPWD rejoicing
18:32:12 <jeanne> agenda+ approving the requested change to Requirements
18:32:12 <jeanne> agenda+ Subgroups: status on January goals?
18:32:12 <jeanne> agenda+ Update from leadership
18:50:30 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has joined #silver
18:57:58 <sajkaj> present+
18:58:45 <CharlesHall> CharlesHall has joined #silver
18:58:58 <CharlesHall> present+
18:59:21 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #silver
18:59:27 <sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj
18:59:31 <sajkaj> present+
18:59:31 <Chuck> present+
18:59:35 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #silver
18:59:35 <jeanne> present+
18:59:40 <Jemma> Jemma has joined #silver
18:59:41 <Francis_Storr> present+
18:59:47 <Jemma> present+
18:59:52 <Fazio> present+
18:59:56 <Jemma> agenda?
18:59:59 <Bruce_Bailey> Bruce_Bailey has joined #silver
19:00:06 <Bruce_Bailey> present+
19:00:09 <Jemma> rrsagent, make minutes
19:00:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/22-silver-minutes.html Jemma
19:00:25 <Sukriti> Sukriti has joined #silver
19:00:35 <Bruce_Bailey> present+
19:00:51 <jeanne> zakim, take up item 1
19:00:51 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Publication of FPWD rejoicing -- taken up [from jeanne]
19:01:01 <sajkaj> E-Champaigne all around ...
19:01:16 <KimD> KimD has joined #silver
19:01:27 <ToddLibby> present+
19:01:34 <KimD> present+
19:01:35 <Sukriti> present+
19:01:45 <jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-announce/2021JanMar/0002.html
19:01:47 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #silver
19:01:50 <Lauriat> Present+
19:02:26 <JF> JF has joined #silver
19:02:42 <JF> Present_
19:02:48 <JF> Present+
19:03:03 <sajkaj> Also a permanent start link for WCAG 3 work will be:
19:03:10 <sajkaj> http://www.w3.org/wai/wcag3
19:03:45 <AngelaAccessForAll> AngelaAccessForAll has joined #silver
19:03:45 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #silver
19:03:50 <AngelaAccessForAll> present+
19:04:07 <sajkaj> js: This latter link best for new readers of our docs
19:04:11 <sarahhorton> present+
19:04:25 <sajkaj> js: Has pointers to all key docs
19:04:52 <Rachael> maybe this: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/intro
19:05:04 <Rachael> present+
19:05:33 <sarahhorton> q+
19:05:35 <ToddLibby> Thank you all for your hard work and being so welcoming!
19:05:49 <jeanne> ack sarah
19:06:18 <sajkaj> sh: Q about process for collecting feedback and for our handling of those
19:06:22 <Bruce_Bailey> q+ to ask about 30 day time limit on feedback
19:06:39 <sajkaj> sh: Do we have a plan for formal comment handling?
19:07:09 <sajkaj> sh: Like that we're prompting people on their comments
19:07:45 <Fazio> Isn't that what github is for?
19:07:58 <Jemma> that is what I read from Jeanne's article.
19:07:59 <Chuck> q+
19:08:05 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #silver
19:08:09 <Jemma> github
19:08:15 <Bruce_Bailey> Bruce asks for some informal guidence on soliciting from DHS Trusted Tester and OCIO ACOP.
19:08:23 <Lauriat> ack Bruce_Bailey
19:08:23 <Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask about 30 day time limit on feedback
19:08:34 <sajkaj> b: Notes 30 days really insufficient
19:08:40 <Fazio> That would only differ from github if it was a yes or no question survey
19:09:31 <sajkaj> bb: I want to solicit feedback elsewhere in the U.S. Government, but that may well take longer
19:09:47 <sajkaj> bb: Also wondering how hard to work on soliciting feedback
19:09:56 <CharlesHall> Feedback Prerequisite https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/#who-develops-wcag-3
19:09:57 <CharlesHall> Feedback Instructions https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/01/wcag-3-fpwd/#feedback
19:10:01 <sajkaj> js: Suggest we could ask our specific questions in a WBS
19:10:02 <CharlesHall> neither prevent survey
19:10:26 <Fazio> I just did one for content usable
19:10:36 <sajkaj> js: This is intriguing -- here's our specific questions and please comment
19:10:43 <JF> Q+ to ask if someone comments in a 'survey', would they be owed a response?
19:11:04 <sajkaj> js: FYI: I'm working on a slidedeck about WCAG 3 and will be available to do presentations. Let me know!
19:11:10 <Lauriat> +1 to Sarah's idea if we can, before joining AG WG, I never knew how to comment or on what.
19:11:43 <jeanne> ack chuc
19:11:43 <Rachael> q+ to say that feedback can continue after the 30 days
19:11:51 <sajkaj> bb: Rephrasing: If we want significant feedback from the large collection of government folks, that will require more than 30 days
19:12:08 <sajkaj> ca: Could also be tough in my company
19:12:39 <sajkaj> q+
19:12:58 <Bruce_Bailey> +1 to what Chuck is saying, that I think the 26th Feb. is kind of soft.
19:13:22 <sajkaj> js: Every spec always has a date by which comments are expected, that doesn't mean comments recieved later will be dropped
19:13:39 <Bruce_Bailey> but having the date in print makes it harder for beurocacy to respond.
19:13:44 <Bruce_Bailey> q+
19:13:57 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #silver
19:14:19 <sajkaj> js: We can't promise to do anything about any comment in a future draft before the published comment deadline
19:14:22 <sajkaj> q-
19:14:34 <jeanne> ack JF
19:14:34 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if someone comments in a 'survey', would they be owed a response?
19:15:09 <Bruce_Bailey> s/beurocacy/beurocracy
19:15:09 <sajkaj> jf: Notes long standing process that comments are responded to. Would expect that even in an WBS, no?
19:15:45 <sajkaj> rm: The date means that we will address recieved comments in the next draft somehow, but no next draft before the cutoff date
19:16:04 <sajkaj> rm: Asks where this might best be clarified
19:16:10 <Chuck> q?
19:16:10 <jeanne> ack rac
19:16:11 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that feedback can continue after the 30 days
19:16:16 <jeanne> ack bru
19:16:36 <sajkaj> b: 60 days needs to be minimum for large bureauracracy to respond
19:17:00 <sajkaj> bb: The short turn around becomes a disincentive to comment
19:17:17 <Fazio> I can get it to the Director of Federal Sector Programs for the EEOC if that helps
19:17:35 <sajkaj> rm: Suggest we could do 60 days on the next draft
19:17:52 <sajkaj> js: Next draft should also be more concrete
19:18:04 <Chuck> q?
19:18:18 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
19:18:18 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- approving the requested change to Requirements -- taken up [from jeanne]
19:18:18 <sajkaj> js: one more round of e-champaigne ...
19:19:05 <sajkaj> js: Want to remind everyone how this change started ...
19:19:27 <jennifer> jennifer has joined #silver
19:19:28 <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17lkBBpSYchGcr-2KB8Ud7-7RTfziAo_TlxMT7WpYCno/edit#
19:19:30 <sajkaj> js: We were asked to update in next draft, started multiple ways to measure
19:19:40 <jennifer> present +
19:20:06 <SuzanneTaylor> present+
19:20:24 <sajkaj> js: Notes we need to work this out with COGA. It's their objection.
19:20:53 <sajkaj> js: NOtes the original text was published yesterday, but it drew an objection
19:21:10 <sajkaj> js: on 1 Dec we agreed to change and have had a few go-rounds since
19:22:06 <jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021Jan/0075.html
19:23:02 <Rachael> q+ to say that I think the first term was intended to be test procedures.
19:23:17 <Jemma> Sarah's version "Silver guidance includes tests and other [performance indicators, quality measures, evaluation methods]. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included. This [approach,
19:23:17 <Jemma> strategy, principle] includes particular attention to people whose needs may better be met with a broad testing approach, such as people with low vision, limited vision, or cognitive and learning disabilities."
19:23:29 <jeanne> ack rach
19:23:29 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that I think the first term was intended to be test procedures.
19:23:48 <Chuck> q+
19:23:51 <sajkaj> rm: May be slightly changing the intent with the bracketed choices, but OK by me
19:24:16 <sajkaj> ca: Yes, but may also be addressing another raised concern, so may be beneficial
19:24:20 <Chuck> ack Ch
19:25:03 <sajkaj> js: Asks RM if any bracketed terms OK?
19:25:04 <sajkaj> rm: Yes
19:25:32 <jennifer> Apologies if I missed this, but how do we indicate which bracketed item we "vote" for?
19:26:02 <sajkaj> js: looks at the term definitions ... several dictionaries
19:26:09 <KimD> me Jennifer, we aren't quite to that point yet. You haven't missed it!
19:26:13 <sajkaj> s/looks/reads/
19:26:25 <sajkaj> s/at //
19:27:05 <sajkaj> js: quality measures seems to turn up health care related definitions
19:27:49 <sajkaj> js: Found Wikipedia for "evaluation methods"
19:27:58 <Bruce_Bailey> q+
19:28:26 <Chuck> q+
19:28:30 <Chuck> ack bru
19:28:38 <sajkaj> bb: Recalls wcag2 principle that our glossary term should substitute inline successfully
19:28:44 <Chuck> ack Ch
19:28:47 <sajkaj> js: wasn't thinking of it that way
19:29:01 <sajkaj> js: they just seemed synonous on first read
19:29:16 <Chuck> Evaluation methods. There are a variety of usability evaluation methods. Certain methods use data from users, while others rely on usability experts. There are usability evaluation methods for all stages of design and development, from product definition to final design modifications.
19:29:39 <Jemma> performance indicators
19:29:39 <Jemma> (wikipedia) A performance indicator or key performance indicator (KPI) is a type of performance measurement. KPIs evaluate the success of an organization or of a particular activity (such as projects, programs, products and other initiatives) in which it engages.
19:29:39 <Jemma> (Collins dictionary) a quantitative or qualitative measurement, or any other criterion, by which the performance, efficiency, achievement, etc of a person or organization can be assessed, often by comparison with an agreed standard or target
19:29:40 <Jemma> 
19:29:40 <Jemma> quality measures - (the first two SERP were all healthcare. Even wikipedia search turned up health care. I don’t think we should use this)
19:29:50 <Lauriat> Direct link to Definitions of terms proposed by Sarah: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17lkBBpSYchGcr-2KB8Ud7-7RTfziAo_TlxMT7WpYCno/edit#heading=h.xggj9lozpbaj
19:29:53 <sarahhorton> q+
19:30:06 <Rachael> q+ to express a preference
19:30:10 <jeanne> ack sar
19:30:22 <sajkaj> sh: Agree that "quality measures" is health care related, and probably not best for us
19:30:24 <Chuck> q+
19:30:35 <sajkaj> sh: "Performance indicators" may also not be meaningful to our audience
19:31:05 <sajkaj> sh: Recalls we were thinking along lines of organizational maturity
19:31:16 <sajkaj> sh: Wilco objected to "procedures"
19:31:46 <Jemma> my vote will also be "evaluation method"
19:31:46 <sajkaj> sh: Wonder whether "evaluation method" would work; tests and more?
19:31:51 <KimD> +1 to "evaluation methods"
19:31:53 <jennifer> Q+
19:31:59 <sajkaj> sh: notes these are methods for evaluating a thing
19:32:07 <Chuck> q+ to ask my favorite is a derivative, "methods of evaluation"
19:32:20 <sajkaj> js: asks if sh prefers evaluation methods?
19:32:20 <jeanne> ack rach
19:32:20 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to express a preference
19:32:21 <sajkaj> sh: yes
19:32:24 <sajkaj> rm: me too
19:32:26 <Jemma> performance indicator is a bit more toward private sector.
19:32:32 <sajkaj> rm: but flexible
19:33:05 <sajkaj> rm: we can put it in two places, suggests using it twice ...
19:33:09 <Jemma> KPI - key perforance indicator for companies. KPI  is not used often in Univeristy settings.
19:33:17 <sarahhorton> q+
19:33:24 <jeanne> q+ Chu
19:33:29 <sajkaj> ca: What RM said
19:33:29 <Rachael> Silver guidance includes tests and methods of evaluation. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and / or evaluating (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, usability evaluation methods with people with disabilities, and more) where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included. This approach includes particular attention to people whose
19:33:29 <Rachael> needs may better be met with a broad testing approach, such as people with low vision, limited vision, or cognitive and learning disabilities.
19:33:39 <sajkaj> ca: like "methods of evaluation"
19:34:02 <sajkaj> ca: do want to stay away from "quality measures"
19:34:02 <jeanne> ack jen
19:34:06 <Chuck> ack Ch
19:34:09 <jeanne> ack chu
19:34:09 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask my favorite is a derivative, "methods of evaluation"
19:34:45 <sajkaj> jennifer: pasting thoughts ...
19:34:48 <jennifer> Silver guidance includes tests and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) key indicators where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included. This [approach, strategy, principle] includes particular atten[CUT]
19:35:59 <Jemma> q+
19:36:10 <jeanne> ack sar
19:36:33 <sajkaj> sh: looking at two other details ... the "other" word is important
19:36:41 <jennifer> Reflecting what I just said: Silver guidance includes tests and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating key indicators where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more). This [approach, strategy, princip[CUT]
19:36:43 <Chuck> +1 to other
19:36:53 <sajkaj> sh: i.e. not everything is a test
19:37:28 <sajkaj> sh: Also wanted to be more precise than saying "this"
19:37:41 <jeanne> ack jemm
19:38:16 <sajkaj> jema: Also wanted to meet Wilco's concern
19:39:04 <sajkaj> js: Suggest we not change too much from what was agreed with COGA; so hesitant for large changes
19:39:33 <Sukriti> q+
19:39:45 <sajkaj> js: Like moving the examples to sentence end
19:39:48 <KimD> +1 to "other" also
19:40:07 <jennifer> q+
19:40:40 <jeanne> ack sukri
19:40:42 <jeanne> ack jenn
19:40:42 <Jemma> I agree with Sukriti about key indicator can be many different thing depending on their roles.
19:40:48 <Fazio> How does everyone feel about "include but not limited to"?
19:41:11 <Sukriti> q+
19:41:18 <Fazio> q
19:41:23 <Fazio> q+
19:41:42 <sajkaj> js: asks df where that phrase? Examples?
19:41:43 <sajkaj> df: yes
19:41:56 <KimD> I agree with Sukriti about "key indicator" language - has different context/meaning in corporate America.
19:42:08 <Chuck> ack faz
19:42:33 <sajkaj> js: Please file as a feedback issue because it's new and different enough
19:42:46 <jeanne> ack suk
19:43:04 <sajkaj> sukriti: indicators are usually very specific
19:43:13 <KimD> +1 to Sukriti
19:43:23 <sajkaj> sukriti: concerned too much opportunity for misinterpretation
19:43:23 <Jemma> +1 Kim and Sukriti
19:43:33 <sajkaj> js: how about eliminate "key indicators"?
19:43:37 <sajkaj> sukriti: yes
19:43:44 <jennifer> Ah, perhaps I misunderstood. I did think it was saying that there would be key indicators to know if the item met standards. :)
19:43:50 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has joined #silver
19:44:27 <sajkaj> jennifer: wonders whether I misunderstand, and "key indicators" was important
19:44:43 <Jemma> I think we are trying to resolve this sentence. "Silver guidance includes tests and other [performance indicators, quality measures, evaluation methods]. "
19:45:40 <Fazio> will is too absolute
19:45:41 <Jemma> this is the effor to reflect Wilco's obejction for the words, "procedure"
19:45:47 <sajkaj> jennifer: Now agrees with Sukriti
19:45:48 <Fazio> may would be better
19:46:10 <Fazio> may is permissive will is similar to shall and means mandatory
19:46:12 <sajkaj> ca: Believe we're at this ...
19:46:15 <sajkaj> js: no!
19:46:41 <jeanne> Silver guidance includes tests and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more).
19:46:46 <sajkaj> js: Notes the example list at sentence end was strong
19:47:23 <Rachael> +1 the first 2 sentences
19:47:36 <sajkaj> +1
19:47:38 <sarahhorton> +1
19:47:39 <Chuck> +1 first 2 sentences
19:47:40 <jennifer> +1
19:47:42 <ToddLibby> +1
19:47:42 <Sukriti> +1
19:48:02 <Chuck> +1 approach
19:48:12 <jeanne> Silver guidance includes tests and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more). This [approach, strategy,
19:48:12 <jeanne> principle] includes particular attention to people whose needs may better be met with a broad testing approach, such as people with low vision, limited vision, or cognitive and learning disabilities.
19:48:27 <Fazio> 0
19:48:36 <Jemma> no objection to move on.
19:48:53 <JF> 0, with a note about "scoring" (but not a hill...)
19:49:00 <KimD> +1 to approach
19:49:01 <Sukriti> +1 approach
19:49:03 <sajkaj> js: Seems we have the wording order ... Now we need to choose among the bracketed options ...
19:49:14 <sarahhorton> +1 approach
19:49:20 <jennifer> +1 to strategy
19:49:20 <JF> +1 to ap[proach
19:49:23 <Jemma> +1 approach - more netural
19:49:25 <sajkaj> js: approach, strategy, or principle
19:49:28 <Rachael> +1 approach
19:49:37 <sajkaj> +1 to approach
19:49:38 <AngelaAccessForAll> +1 approach
19:49:41 <jennifer> We already say approach in the sentence, which is difficult to read for me.
19:49:50 <ToddLibby> +1 approach
19:50:17 <sajkaj> q+ that second approach can be dropped
19:50:31 <Chuck> js:  or just drop second approach
19:50:49 <Lauriat> +1 to JF, but I don't have a good replacement in mind
19:50:50 <Jemma> + jf
19:51:05 <sajkaj> jf: suggest approach in the first use, and swap the second as "broader testing strategy"
19:51:32 <jennifer> Alternate terms for the second "approach": technique, procedure, method, means
19:51:37 <Bruce_Bailey> +1 for broad versus broader
19:51:40 <sajkaj> js: "broader" asks broader than what, and leads to criticism of wcag2 that we don't want to go there
19:51:49 <Rachael> +1 to chuck's wording
19:51:50 <Fazio> robust?
19:51:57 <Jemma> +1 to Chuck
19:52:02 <sarahhorton> +1
19:52:06 <Jemma> +1
19:52:08 <sajkaj> +1
19:52:08 <jennifer> +1 to Chuck
19:52:13 <JF> +0.5
19:52:14 <KimD> +1 to final sentence wording
19:52:16 <Sukriti> +1
19:52:17 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
19:52:18 <Bruce_Bailey> +1
19:52:24 <AngelaAccessForAll> +1
19:52:37 <ToddLibby> +1
19:52:49 <sajkaj> js: About to propose entire para ...
19:52:51 <jeanne> Silver guidance includes tests and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more). This approach includes
19:52:51 <jeanne> particular attention to people whose needs may better be met with a broad testing strategy, such as people with low vision, limited vision, or cognitive and learning disabilities.
19:52:54 <Chuck> +1 to the whole enchilada!
19:53:03 <Sukriti> +1
19:53:10 <sajkaj> +1
19:53:15 <KimD> +1
19:53:16 <sarahhorton> +1
19:53:19 <Lauriat> +1
19:53:22 <AngelaAccessForAll> +1
19:53:22 <Jemma> =1
19:53:25 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
19:53:25 <Bruce_Bailey> +1
19:53:26 <ToddLibby> +1
19:53:28 <Jemma> +1
19:53:30 <JF> +1
19:53:31 <jennifer> +1
19:53:33 <CharlesHall> +1
19:53:34 <Rachael> +1
19:53:35 <Fazio> Silver or WCAG3?
19:53:40 <Jemma> s/=1/
19:53:55 <Rachael> I can send it to COGA for a final approval by email.
19:53:59 <Bruce_Bailey> q+
19:54:29 <sajkaj> bb: wonders about guidance vs guidelines
19:54:33 <Chuck> ack Br
19:54:41 <sajkaj> js: at time originally written, didn't know they'd be guidelines
19:55:20 <Rachael> q+
19:55:21 <sajkaj> bb: expecting testing with at beyond bronze is not going to happen
19:55:41 <jennifer> Not all people with disabilities use assistive technology.
19:55:48 <sajkaj> bb: Suggests "Guidelines" with cap G -- so better guidance
19:55:52 <Rachael> q-
19:56:04 <sajkaj> js: asks any objections?
19:56:54 <Bruce_Bailey> s/with cap G/with cap G would be bad
19:56:59 <sajkaj> RESOLUTION: TO adopt the changes to the 4.1 Requirement in response to Github issue #188 as follows:
19:57:02 <jeanne> Silver guidance includes tests and other evaluation methods. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance will use other ways of measuring and/or evaluating where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities may be included (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more). This approach includes
19:57:02 <jeanne> particular attention to people whose needs may better be met with a broad testing strategy, such as people with low vision, limited vision, or cognitive and learning disabilities.
19:57:21 <Fazio> lol
19:57:31 <Jemma> agenda?
19:58:14 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has left #silver
19:58:26 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
19:58:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/22-silver-minutes.html jeanne
20:01:22 <Rachael> But ray - chel is fine too.
20:01:30 <Rachael> s/But ray - chel is fine too. /
20:03:27 <KimD> KimD has left #silver
20:11:24 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make minutes
20:11:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/01/22-silver-minutes.html sajkaj
20:46:01 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver