IRC log of maturity on 2023-11-29
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 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 agileā¦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