15:37:45 RRSAgent has joined #maturity 15:37:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-maturity-irc 15:37:49 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:37:50 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Fazio_ 15:45:01 meeting: Maturity Model 15:52:55 chair: Fazio 15:54:03 Agenda+ New Business 15:54:34 Agenda+ Github Issue #83 Section 3.7.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Culture: proof points vs. ratings mismatch 15:54:34 /issues/83 -> #83 15:54:57 Agenda+ Github Issue #85 Inconsistencies in Inactive ratings for various dimensions 15:54:57 /issues/85 -> #85 15:55:15 Agenda + Github Issue #89 ICT Development Lifecycle ratings outcomes aren't stated like the outcomes are in Silver 15:55:15 /issues/89 -> #89 15:57:10 present+ 16:01:19 stacey has joined #maturity 16:01:37 CharlesL1 has joined #maturity 16:01:38 present+ 16:02:51 scribe+ 16:03:03 SusiPallero has joined #maturity 16:03:06 scribe+ 16:03:16 zakim, next item 16:03:16 agendum 1 -- New Business Agenda+ CSUN (should we meet) Agenda+ Working Draft end of year update Agenda+ Do we cite a particular WCAG profile as a conformance 16:03:17 present+ 16:03:19 ... target? It seems reasonable to cite that WCAG profile A would arguably be in (Lionel’s question) Agenda+ MM Draft usability update (GitHub Issue 43) Agenda+ GitHub 16:03:19 ... Issue #132 (see previous minutes) Agenda+ Github Issue #79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evalu -- taken up [from CharlesL] 16:03:19 /issues/79 -> #79 16:03:19 /issues/132 -> #132 16:03:20 kline has joined #maturity 16:03:22 Mark_Miller has joined #Maturity 16:03:25 present+ 16:03:47 zakim, next item 16:03:47 agendum 1 was just opened, stacey 16:03:48 present+ 16:04:34 zakim, close item 16:04:34 I don't understand 'close item', stacey 16:04:34 zakim, close item 1 16:04:34 agendum 1, New Business Agenda+ CSUN (should we meet) Agenda+ Working Draft end of year update Agenda+ Do we cite a particular WCAG profile as a conformance target? 16:04:35 ... It seems reasonable to cite that WCAG profile A would arguably be in (Lionel’s question) Agenda+ MM Draft usability update (GitHub Issue 43) Agenda+ GitHub Issue 16:04:35 kline_ has joined #maturity 16:04:35 ... #132 (see previous minutes) Agenda+ Github Issue #79 Section 3.3.2 Rating for evalu, closed 16:04:35 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:04:35 2. New Business [from Fazio_] 16:04:35 present+ 16:04:35 zakim, next item 16:04:35 agendum 2 -- New Business -- taken up [from Fazio_] 16:06:45 present+ Janina 16:07:38 subtopic: issue 43 16:08:52 https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/43 16:08:53 https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/43 -> Issue 43 Should "proof points" and "ratings for evaluation" sections be combined for clarity? (by jasonjgw) 16:09:58 stacey: using communications as Proof of Concept. could be simplified "section" looking at the table then simplified proof points. 16:10:32 ... for the next time we meet after the holidays, and Suzy was going to look at Support for the same thing as a different dimension. 16:10:50 Fazio_: as long as it fits in one view port that would be great. 16:11:23 Jeff: are you providing an over all example of a section as a prototype? 16:11:45 stacey: Yes although I am not an HTML expert. 16:13:38 Charles: future agenda item, going over what Benetech has been doing with maturity model. Almost 90% complete. New tables, cross referencing and scoring for data insights on their maturity as a whole. Wants to share with the group as potential overall references for the spreadsheets. 16:14:45 David: if there's a W3C room at CSUN, can we invite public in and talk about maturity model? 16:15:29 Janina: Since it's not a talk, probably not. 16:17:59 Jeff: should we sync proof points and spreadsheet or just reference spreadsheet (or whatever the final doc is)? 16:18:36 David: let's do end of year update first, see examples from Benetech and tackle issue after. Check if there's a Git issue, if not add one. 16:19:09 David: is there an updated editor's draft? If yes, do we want those changes published along with that? 16:19:23 Charles: yes, we want new state to be the one that's published. Do all at the same time. 16:23:02 zakim, next item 16:23:02 agendum 3 -- Github Issue #83 Section 3.7.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Culture: proof points vs. ratings mismatch -- taken up [from Fazio_] 16:23:02 /issues/83 -> #83 16:23:32 https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/83 16:23:32 https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/83 -> Issue 83 Section 3.7.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Culture: proof points vs. ratings mismatch (by maryjom) 16:25:53 David: Is anyone else asking the same question? 16:26:51 Jeff: looks like someone might have updated the doc after this issue was submitted (?) 16:28:23 David: should we replace "Culture" with "Governance?" Where else in doc is governance? 16:31:23 David: key terms - does it include what governance is?" 16:31:37 Jeff: I think add definition for governance in key terms 16:33:21 Just in case it helps here are two definitions: 16:33:44 Culture is a system of learned and shared beliefs, language, norms, values, and symbols that groups use to identify themselves and provide a framework within which to live and work. 16:34:07 Janina: can we ask Mary Jo what she meant so we can get more details? 16:34:13 Governance is a system that provides a framework for managing organisations. 16:37:21 kline has joined #maturity 16:37:28 present+ 16:37:56 Closed with comment: We would like to understand this issue better. We have added additional Proof Points, since this issue was logged. 16:38:07 zakim, next item 16:38:07 agendum 4 -- Github Issue #85 Inconsistencies in Inactive ratings for various dimensions -- taken up [from Fazio_] 16:38:07 /issues/85 -> #85 16:38:23 https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/85 16:38:23 https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/85 -> Issue 85 Inconsistencies in Inactive ratings for various dimensions (by maryjom) 16:39:21 For consistency, all maturity stages should have a definition and outcomes for every dimension. This is true except for two cases: 3.3.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Support: Inactive stage has no outcomes listed. 3.6.2 Ratings for Evaluation - Procurement: Inactive state text that is there should be identified as a definition. It is also missing outcomes. 16:40:00 Jeff: there's a definition in both. Perhaps she thinks they're not specific enough? 16:40:10 Charles: There's not outcomes, though. 16:40:28 *no outcomes. (typo) 16:42:03 Jeff: outcomes redundant? What if we got rid of them in all of them in stage one? 16:43:11 David: no activities/outcomes from each proof point dimension for inactive stage? Is that what we're saying? 16:44:09 David: blanket statement around no effort being done for that evaluation level? (for inactive) 16:47:32 Stacey: # 43 and #83 might be tied together for concise on those definitions. 16:47:32 /issues/83 -> #83 16:48:04 Jeff: idea in definition..."no efforts to...be "no organized efforts?" 16:48:35 David: inactive = nothing happening. If there's something happening you don't know about, then there's still something happening. 16:49:05 Charles: when you find out about the effort, you can change the evaluation. 16:50:15 David: let Stacey, Susi, Mark look at 43 and 83 and see if they tie together and proof of concept. 16:53:42 David: leave open ended for resources or use WAI supported ones? (replace W3C in titles with WAI as it's recommended?) 16:54:17 Janina: Interesting point, but what exactly are the WAI activities? Need to remove W3C for now, but think about this on the side for pointing to specific things in specific places. 16:57:48 zakim, end meeting 16:57:48 As of this point the attendees have been CharlesL, IrfanAli, Lionel_Wolberger, Fazio_, stacey, SusiPallero, Mark_Miller, kline_, Janina, kline 16:57:50 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:57:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-maturity-minutes.html Zakim 16:57:58 I am happy to have been of service, stacey; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:57:58 Zakim has left #maturity 19:44:01 CharlesL1 has left #maturity