IRC log of maturity on 2023-05-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:37:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #maturity
14:38:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/03-maturity-irc
14:38:00 [Zakim]
inviting RRSAgent
14:38:00 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:38:01 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Fazio
14:38:25 [Fazio]
meeting: Maturity Model
14:38:33 [Fazio]
chair: Fazio
14:38:37 [Fazio]
present+
14:39:28 [Fazio]
Agenda+ Discuss any activities the Task Force might want during TPAC in September. Are there other W3C WG we want to have a joint meeting with? What agenda for those meetings? Note this is NOT about any breakout sessions we might want to hold on Wednesday of TPAC
14:39:55 [Fazio]
Agenda +Review Susanna’s updates to Support Dimension https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-maturity/2023Apr/0013.html
14:43:57 [Fazio]
Agenda+ Some of the design process questions seem to make sense for large organizations where process, templates and checklists are more formal parts of a large organization. Were there discussions of how these might be framed for small organizations? (e.g. not having a formal design review process, but we do have design reviews; is the way forward to become more formal even if the team has three members?)
14:44:37 [Fazio]
Agenda+ Under 3.4.1.2 Development category of proof points, the examples of “Accessible developer implementation resources” seem more about information. Where might you consider software and hardware tools that help with accessible development, such as access to screen readers or switches?
14:45:17 [Fazio]
Agenda + Continue discussion on TLDR https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-maturity/2023Apr/0007.htmland Use Case https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-maturity/2023Apr/0019.html Integration
14:45:37 [Fazio]
Agenda + New business
14:59:46 [bpoday]
bpoday has joined #maturity
15:01:38 [Lionel]
Lionel has joined #Maturity
15:01:42 [Lionel]
present+
15:03:16 [Lionel]
scribe: Lionel Wolberger
15:03:18 [CharlesL]
CharlesL has joined #maturity
15:03:24 [Lionel]
scribe: Lionel
15:03:24 [janina]
present+
15:03:26 [Lionel]
present+
15:03:27 [CharlesL]
present+
15:03:29 [Lionel]
zakim, next item
15:03:29 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Discuss any activities the Task Force might want during TPAC in September. Are there other W3C WG we want to have a joint meeting with? What agenda for those meetings?
15:03:29 [bpoday]
present+
15:03:32 [Zakim]
... Note this is NOT about any breakout sessions we might want to hold on Wednesday of TPAC -- taken up [from Fazio]
15:04:45 [stacey]
stacey has joined #maturity
15:04:51 [Lionel]
Fazio: Who do we want to meet with at TPAC?
15:04:56 [stacey]
present+
15:05:00 [Lionel]
... focus perhaps on groups outside of our typical sphere of influence
15:05:36 [Lionel]
janina: Can be other WAI groups as well (as APA Chair, I want to be sure we request everything required)
15:08:16 [nadine]
nadine has joined #maturity
15:08:22 [nadine]
present+
15:08:55 [Lionel]
Fazio: A good example was last year when APA sat with Verifiable Credentials and DIDs
15:09:03 [Lionel]
q?
15:09:22 [jlkline]
jlkline has joined #maturity
15:09:32 [jlkline]
present+
15:11:20 [Fazio]
q?
15:11:22 [Lionel]
Lionel: Brainstorming, maybe we want to reach out to ISO, IETF, or even AGWG regarding the personnas
15:11:42 [Lionel]
janina: This suggests we might want to meet with EO
15:12:07 [Lionel]
Fazio: Makes me think, we would like to see how our less technical, more process oriented work will be greeted by other groups
15:13:39 [Lionel]
Lionel: Choose a group that has GAFA-type companies
15:13:51 [Lionel]
Fazio: Yes, we can make an effort to get in front of Apple, Google, etc.
15:15:50 [Lionel]
zakim, next item
15:15:50 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Review Susanna’s updates to Support Dimension https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-maturity/2023Apr/0013.html -- taken up [from Fazio]
15:18:48 [jlkline]
queue+
15:19:00 [stacey]
would someone be willing to screen share? It errors out/won't allow me to open
15:21:40 [Lionel]
Jeff: I am concerned that the inclusion of physical accessibility is out of scope
15:21:45 [Lionel]
... we are focused on IT accessibility
15:22:52 [Lionel]
Fazio: We hvae discussed that physical access is a pre-requisites to many aspects of IT accessibility
15:23:05 [Lionel]
Lionel: +1 to Jeff
15:23:19 [Lionel]
Fazio: I remind us, this is a maturity model, and the items are not required
15:23:47 [Lionel]
Brian: This is overlapping with Personnel as well, as it involves the ERG
15:24:09 [Lionel]
Jeff: The definition of 'Support' is a bit vague
15:24:16 [Lionel]
... in the current model
15:24:36 [Lionel]
... the definition could be seen as exiting the IT accessibility scope
15:26:00 [Lionel]
stacey: Are we including work accommodations in the work place?
15:26:18 [Lionel]
Fazio: This support needs to go into everything, and the amount of support hat you provide depends on how mature you are
15:26:28 [Lionel]
... we are saying, the most mature type of organization can do this.
15:27:08 [Lionel]
Jeff: +1 to Brian's thought, that these should go into Personnel
15:27:24 [Lionel]
... I thought 'support' was when somebody with a disability came to a website and it is not accessible
15:27:34 [Lionel]
... or a PWD who is having problems with a screen reader
15:27:43 [Lionel]
... that is the kind of Support this was intended for
15:27:49 [Lionel]
Fazio: I agree and disagree
15:28:03 [Lionel]
... We want to refer to both internal and external support
15:28:09 [Lionel]
... there is a section called Customer Support
15:28:17 [Lionel]
Jeff: That is her proposal, correct?
15:29:30 [janina]
q+
15:31:12 [stacey]
For support items that are out of scope for this model, potentially we could include suggestions for where a company could go farther for disability inclusion in the workplace that they could explore/resources?
15:32:57 [Lionel]
Jeff: This is a very big change in one go.
15:33:25 [janina]
q-
15:33:43 [janina]
q- jf
15:33:46 [janina]
ack jf
15:33:55 [janina]
ack jk
15:34:03 [janina]
ack jlk
15:34:03 [CharlesL1]
CharlesL1 has joined #maturity
15:39:37 [Lionel]
Lionel: How shall we work best as a Task Force to edit these lines?
15:40:26 [Lionel]
Jeff: We should think about whether a line should be here or not, before we edit it
15:41:11 [Lionel]
janina: Built environment might be able to stay if it is part of intranet support, the ability to request accomodations from an internal support team
15:41:30 [Lionel]
... but I agree with Jeff we have to keep out pure built environment things, in an extreme sense
15:42:26 [jlkline]
jlkline has joined #maturity
15:42:32 [jlkline]
present+
15:42:36 [jlkline]
queue+
15:44:18 [janina]
CloudFlare Employee Accessibility: https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-flarability-cloudflares-accessibility-employee-resource-group/
15:46:13 [Lionel]
Jeff: Can we collaborate in a Google sheet?
15:46:26 [Lionel]
Lionel: We may want a Google Doc, it can support wider collaboration and more comments
15:46:33 [Lionel]
Fazio: Yes, that might work
15:48:03 [Lionel]
Fazio: I will create a Google Doc for the section that we are group editing
15:48:16 [Lionel]
Jeff: I note that changing format to a Google Doc might confuse things
15:49:14 [Lionel]
CharlesL1: Suggest we have the original author attend the meeting to share what she was thinking
15:49:17 [Lionel]
Fazio: I will invite
15:49:27 [Lionel]
zakim, next item
15:49:27 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Lionel
15:49:30 [Lionel]
q?
15:49:34 [Lionel]
ack jlkline
15:49:36 [Lionel]
zakim, next item
15:49:36 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Some of the design process questions seem to make sense for large organizations where process, templates and checklists are more formal parts of a large organization.
15:49:40 [Zakim]
... Were there discussions of how these might be framed for small organizations? (e.g. not having a formal design review process, but we do have design reviews; is the way forward
15:49:40 [Zakim]
... to become more formal even if the team has three members?) -- taken up [from Fazio]
15:50:01 [janina]
ack jlk
15:50:24 [CharlesL1]
Some of the design process questions seem to make sense for large organizations where process, templates and checklists are more formal parts of a large organization. Where there discussions of how these might be framed for small organizations? (e.g. we do not have a formal design review process, but we do have design reviews; is the way forward to become more formal even if the team has three members?)
15:52:23 [Lionel]
Fazio: The intent of the maturity model is to formalize processes and continually improve them
15:52:36 [Lionel]
... while an individual item may not make sense at a particular time
15:52:46 [Lionel]
... due to revenue, personnel, technology, or other limitation
15:53:07 [Lionel]
... as long as you are using the MM you are aware of your status, where you are, and where you should be going
15:53:29 [Lionel]
Jeff: +1 to Fazio
15:53:32 [CharlesL1]
Under 3.4.1.2 Development category of proof points, the examples of “Accessible developer implementation resources” seem more about information. Where might you consider software and hardware tools that help with accessible development, such as access to screen readers or switches?
15:53:42 [Lionel]
zakim, next item
15:53:42 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Under 3.4.1.2 Development category of proof points, the examples of “Accessible developer implementation resources” seem more about information. Where might you
15:53:45 [Zakim]
... consider software and hardware tools that help with accessible development, such as access to screen readers or switches? -- taken up [from Fazio]
15:57:54 [Lionel]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:57:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/03-maturity-minutes.html Lionel