15:54:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #maturity
15:54:51 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/11/29-maturity-irc
15:54:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:54:52 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Fazio_
15:55:03 <Fazio_> meeting: maturity model
15:55:41 <Fazio_> chair: Fazio
15:58:18 <Fazio_> present+
15:58:36 <Fazio_> Agenda+ New Business
15:58:51 <Fazio_> Agenda+ MM Draft usability update
15:59:05 <Fazio_> Agenda+ Github Issue #79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evaluation - Support: Outcomes for optimize stage don't align with proof points
15:59:06 <gb> /issues/79 -> #79
15:59:22 <Fazio_> Agenda+ Github Issue #83 Section 3.7.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Culture: proof points vs. ratings mismatch
15:59:22 <gb> /issues/83 -> #83
15:59:34 <Fazio_> Agenda+ Github Issue #85 Inconsistencies in Inactive ratings for various dimensions
15:59:34 <gb> /issues/85 -> #85
15:59:47 <Fazio_> Agenda + Github Issue #89 ICT Development Lifecycle ratings outcomes aren't stated like the outcomes are in Silver
15:59:47 <gb> /issues/89 -> #89
16:00:04 <stacey> stacey has joined #maturity
16:01:58 <janina> janina has joined #maturity
16:02:11 <Mark_Miller> Mark_Miller has joined #Maturity
16:03:09 <janina> present+
16:03:22 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber has joined #maturity
16:03:32 <sbyrnehaber> present+
16:04:11 <Mark_Miller> present+
16:04:13 <CharlesL1> CharlesL1 has joined #maturity
16:04:14 <stacey> present+
16:04:17 <sbyrnehaber> scribe+
16:04:20 <CharlesL1> present+
16:04:28 <sbyrnehaber> zakim, next item
16:04:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- New Business -- taken up [from Fazio_]
16:04:52 <IrfanA> IrfanA has joined #maturity
16:04:59 <IrfanA> present+
16:05:06 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: 60 out of 139 items closed, many of the remaining are editorial
16:05:35 <sbyrnehaber> janina: We will follow APA schedule last meeting for 2023 will be the 20th
16:06:35 <sbyrnehaber> stacey: Issue 132 - someone wants User Research before User design in the order
16:06:48 <Fazio_> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/132
16:06:48 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/132 -> Issue 132 User Research is not User Experience (by jake-abma)
16:07:41 <sbyrnehaber> within the design text, checklists etc is vague, also only addresses user not employee
16:08:07 <sbyrnehaber> the section numbers in question is 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.1.3
16:09:01 <Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel_Wolberger has joined #maturity
16:09:01 <Lionel_Wolberger> present+
16:10:19 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: I didn't do the best job fleshing that section out.  We should probably add in that user research needs to be done at multiple points, and just because it is first doesn't mean its sequential
16:11:04 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: I can meet with stacey to expand on this section
16:15:58 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #maturity
16:16:50 <stacey> scribe+
16:16:54 <stacey> Sheri: not dictating approaches, like design thinking or agile…this is SDLC and they changed it to ICT)
16:17:34 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #maturity
16:17:40 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #maturity
16:18:01 <sbyrnehaber> Mark_Miller: the introductory comment helps with the ambiguity
16:18:05 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: +1 to Mark
16:18:06 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #maturity
16:18:10 <Fazio_> +1 to Mark
16:18:49 <sbyrnehaber> Stacey: maybe I'm the only one having a problem
16:18:50 <Fazio_> Sheri, we can better define the proof points
16:19:08 <CharlesL1> CharlesL1 has left #maturity
16:19:22 <sbyrnehaber> not exactly Fazio_ I said we could add text that makes the proof points clearer that there are no sequential dependencies and we aren't dictating strategy or approach
16:19:48 <sbyrnehaber> Mark - use lower case and period for the bullet points, it helps tie everything back
16:20:17 <sbyrnehaber> Sheri: we should do a quick consistency check on the rest of the bullet points outside of ICT also
16:20:41 <sbyrnehaber> Sheri: we can clean that up when stacey and I get together to brainstorm the additions
16:20:57 <sbyrnehaber> zakim, next item
16:20:57 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- MM Draft usability update -- taken up [from Fazio_]
16:21:27 <sbyrnehaber> issue 43
16:21:47 <sbyrnehaber> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/43
16:21:48 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/43 -> Issue 43 Should "proof points" and "ratings for evaluation" sections be combined for clarity? (by jasonjgw)
16:22:54 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: we are calling this the "usability issue"
16:23:13 <sbyrnehaber> stacey: in the narrative, the proof points and the ratings sections are too far disconnected
16:23:31 <sbyrnehaber> stacy: do we want to propose a plain language summar?
16:23:54 <Fazio_> q?
16:25:00 <sbyrnehaber> q+
16:25:44 <sbyrnehaber> stacey: described a plain language proposal for the communications dimension.  The original ticket logger (Jason) didn't object
16:26:19 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: We need to match the verbs in the narrative with what is in the spreadsheet
16:26:45 <sbyrnehaber> Mark_Miller: Likes this approach, this would help orient someone like me
16:27:11 <sbyrnehaber> Mark_Miller: Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them
16:27:57 <sbyrnehaber> Mark_Miller: in Optimize, the key part is you are influencing beyond your organization and contributing to the community as a whole. (sbyrnehaber: this is a different issue)
16:30:24 <sbyrnehaber> stacey: Susi and stacey are meeting at 6 am EST next Weds to discuss
16:31:16 <Fazio_> q?
16:31:18 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #maturity
16:31:24 <Lionel_Wolberger> q?
16:31:28 <Lionel_Wolberger> ack sbyrnehaber
16:32:13 <Fazio_> ack sbyrnehaber
16:34:04 <Fazio_> zakim, next item
16:34:04 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Github Issue #79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evaluation - Support: Outcomes for optimize stage don't align with proof points -- taken up [from Fazio_]
16:34:04 <gb> /issues/79 -> #79
16:34:46 <sbyrnehaber> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/79
16:34:46 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/79 -> Issue 79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evaluation - Support: Outcomes for optimize stage don't align with proof points (by maryjom)
16:36:04 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: there is some crossover with personnel
16:36:28 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: a comment from sbyrnehaber last Jan says assign it to her
16:37:07 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: but that is because last January, Support was a bit of an orphan
16:37:51 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: the larger question is do we want to duplicate proof points when they show up in multiple dimensions
16:38:17 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: that creates a maintenance and double credit issue if they show up twice
16:39:11 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: perhaps we need to bolster the intro saying "there may be cross over between Support and ...." to provide people a hint that some support details show up elsewhere
16:39:34 <sbyrnehaber> Jeff: Susi did a bunch of spreadsheet updates that didn't end up in the narrative
16:40:30 <sbyrnehaber> Mark_Miller: and Jeff: do we have a bigger issue that we need to sync up narrative with spreadsheet changes
16:40:51 <CharlesL> q+
16:41:16 <sbyrnehaber> jeff: spreadsheet changes didn't go through github
16:43:09 <sbyrnehaber> stacey: the support summary in the spreadsheet matches the narrative
16:45:23 <Fazio_> Employees/Talent Acquisition: Candidates are offered accommodations for their interviews. Disability Employee Resource Group(s) provide social and professional support to employees with disabilities.
16:49:27 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: for each dimension that has overlap, we need to have a clear line which proof points goes into what dimension
16:50:02 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: for example, TA could say "Candidates are offered accommodations as defined in the support dimension for their interviews"
16:50:24 <sbyrnehaber> sbyrnehaber: and support could contain accommodations process, strategy, budgeting, etc.
16:50:38 <sbyrnehaber> jeff: thinks optimize outcome needs to be rewritten for support
16:51:25 <janina> +1 to Sheri's forward id hrefs
16:52:11 <sbyrnehaber> janina: we don't need two separate issues, but the cross links will be useful
16:52:29 <sbyrnehaber> strike that
16:52:54 <sbyrnehaber> janina: open up a new issue (Jeff said he would execute on it)
16:53:43 <sbyrnehaber> q?
16:54:19 <sbyrnehaber> CharlesL: issue 172 documents discrepancies between spreadsheet and narrative
16:54:38 <sbyrnehaber> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/172
16:54:39 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/172 -> Issue 172 Proof Point Discrepancies between Specification and Template (by clapierre)
16:55:59 <sbyrnehaber> Fazio_: will implement sbyrnehaber 's suggested changes for crossover in personnel
16:59:00 <sbyrnehaber> zakim, end meeting
16:59:00 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Fazio_, janina, sbyrnehaber, Mark_Miller, stacey, CharlesL, IrfanA, Lionel_Wolberger
16:59:02 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:59:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/29-maturity-minutes.html Zakim
16:59:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, sbyrnehaber; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:59:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #maturity
17:00:51 <janina> rrsagent, bye
17:00:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items