Meeting minutes
<Cyborg> am I in the right place?
<Cyborg> can someone please resend the zoom link here?
<Cyborg> can the links please be reposted here?
<Cyborg> i'm having difficulty finding things today...given the circumstances
<shadi> https://
<Jason_K> done
<Azlan> Done
<Cyborg> wondering if we can add a statement at the beginning/early on to make it explicitly clear that this is not to diminish responsibility, but to ensure that this work actually gets done
<garcialo> done reading
<Cyborg> i continue to be concerned about this being considered "loopholes"
<laura> done reading
Jason_K: Suggests to split the time of today's meeting between reviewing the doc and the powerpoint and shadi agrees
<Azlan> No objection
<Jason_K> With bullets reads better
<laura> +1 to bullets
shadi: About Abstract with bullets: shadi asks about agreement on going on the bullet even if it is not traditionally the way w3c presents it
<Azlan> No strong preference either way
+1 to bullets
Cyborg: Asks if Abstract with bullets takes the place of Abstract, shadi say yes
<garcialo> +1
<garcialo> +1 to order of the bullets aren't as important right now
Jason_K: Maybe we don't need to go into too much detail about the order of the bullets as it is a template
Cyborg: Suggests to move it the the previous just before it (the "Is intended to maximize accessibility through recommended processes and practices rather than providing exemptions or loopholes" point)
<garcialo> I have no problems moving it up one bullet point
<Jason_K> No objections moving the bullets
<garcialo> no objections
<Azlan> No objections
Team agrees on moving the bullet up
shadi: We don't have certainty about the continuity of our work because August might be a slow month for AGWG as they won't be meeting. We will have more rounds to review is it is not close to be a public document yet.
shadi: Says it is going to be a draft, a living document. Content will be moved to another Google doc.
Teams agrees in the content of "Status of this Document section"
garcialo: About Background section: would like to move the examples up
<garcialo> SusiPallero: We can close the comment
shadi: Introduction section, examples were added explaining what would you expect to find in the document
<garcialo> No concerns
<Azlan> All good to me
+1 to Introduction as it is
Teams agrees to keep Introduction sections as it is.
<Jason_K> +1 to intro as is
shadi: Bugs and Other Issues of Oversight section: As it is a very early draft we could have different files. This section is not quite ready. Being this an early draft we can leave it as it is
garcialo: Concerns that it looks like policy itself. Jason agrees about ir and roles being directly responsible is a concern.
garcialo: We could soften this up. Shadi agrees.
<mgifford> Agreed on nixing the Fortune 500 reference.
shadi: Feels like Fortune 500 is too north american centric. garcialo and susi agrees.
I think this is just examples and we could leave it as they are ase it is just a draft for now
Fortune 500 reference eliminated
<Azlan> I'm ok to go with it for now. I expect it will be further debated in the future.
shadi: asks to vote about going with the examples as they are or remove the examples or the entire section.
+1 to Azlan
garcialo: votes option 2
mgifford: we are simply giving examples so it is ok to be more general about it
shadi: clarifies nothing will be lost. We are just deciding what goes to the Draft right now.
<mgifford> Thanks for the clarification Shadi.
shadi: If we get the approval from AGWG we will continue to refine the document
Azlan: We might not reach a consesus on wording but we can pick it up in the future. Moving forward putting a comment that we don't have agreement within the subgroup.
<Jason_K> +1 to Azlans approach
+1 to Azlan
shadi: suggests to even copy the discussion in the comments there
garcialo: agrees with the approach but not adding the discussion on comments
shadi: About section Consideration X: Susi added notes about Maturity Model Support Dimension. Vote if it is going to be added or should we discuss it in the future.
<garcialo> SusiPallero: I added this section just in case any of those point would make a good example or something we should add. I don't thinkwe need to consider it right now for the draft. It could be for the future.
Cyborg: Maybe adding that there is work happening in Maturity Model TF about this topic. Not necessarily the text.
shadi: goes through the previous headings and says this is going to be part of the draft presented to the WG
shadi: About slides: The only new part is about the Outcomes adding that this documents needs more work
<Cyborg> link to slide deck please
Jason_K: Adding to Outcomes one slide with an example
shadi: clarifies he will be switching over to the document during the presentation
shadi: if there are comments about working add it as comments
shadi: question to the group what do we think about this work continuing
<Cyborg> +1 to continue
<laura> +1 to continue
<mgifford> I feel like this is valuable work. Definitely see value in continuing it. Good example policies is quite useful to organizations.
<garcialo> +1 worth continuing
Azlan: there is value in what we are doing, votes yes
<Jason_K> +1 worth doing
<garcialo> SusiPallero: 100% this is really valuagle. I had a lot of people asking about policy the last 2.5 years. Especially for Latin America. We lack a lot of experience in accesibility and it could be very useful.
shadi: Invites the group to the presentation tomorrow
<Cyborg> my comment is just +1 to considering this in regional and international contexts in a next iteration -- not sure if directly next or in future. but it is important to consider the international variation of need.
+1 to Cyborg
shadi: Thanks to everyone that was part of the group
<laura> Thanks everyone.