18:56:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
18:56:46 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/13-aria-apg-irc
18:56:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:56:47 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force
18:57:01 <Matt_King> present+
18:57:13 <Matt_King> CHAIR: Jemma
18:57:22 <Matt_King> rrsagent, make minutes
18:57:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/13-aria-apg-minutes.html Matt_King
18:58:11 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike has joined #aria-apg
18:58:59 <dmontalvo> zakim, agenda?
18:58:59 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
18:59:12 <agendabot> clear agenda
18:59:12 <agendabot> agenda+ -> Infrastructure: update skipto.js to version 5.2.1 by jongund · Pull Request #2807 · w3c/aria-practices https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2807
19:00:37 <arigilmore> arigilmore has joined #aria-apg
19:00:42 <arigilmore> present+
19:01:29 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-apg
19:01:31 <Jem> Jem has joined #aria-apg
19:01:36 <howard-e> present+
19:01:41 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
19:01:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/13-aria-apg-minutes.html Jem
19:01:48 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
19:01:50 <Jem> present+ JaeunJemmaKu
19:02:03 <Jem> Meeting agenda: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/February-13%2C-2024-Agenda
19:02:11 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/Meetings
19:02:25 <Jem> present+ DanielMontalvo
19:02:34 <dmontalvo> zakim, agenda?
19:02:34 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
19:02:35 <Zakim> 1. -> Infrastructure: update skipto.js to version 5.2.1 by jongund · Pull Request #2807 · w3c/aria-practices https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2807 [from agendabot]
19:03:21 <CurtBellew> CurtBellew has joined #aria-apg
19:04:31 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/AgendaBot
19:05:58 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
19:06:10 <jugglinmike> Topic: Setup and Review Agenda
19:06:22 <jugglinmike> Jem: Any requests for changes?
19:07:24 <Jem> agenda+ Next publication
19:07:29 <Jem> agenda?
19:07:40 <Jem> zakim, clear agenda
19:07:40 <Zakim> agenda cleared
19:07:47 <Jem> agenda?
19:08:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I just added an item for issue triage process
19:08:26 <jugglinmike> Jem: Next meeting: February 20
19:08:34 <jugglinmike> Topic: Next publication
19:08:50 <jugglinmike> Subtopic:       Infrastructure: update skipto.js to version 5.2.1 by jongund · Pull Request #2807 · w3c/aria-practices
19:08:59 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2807
19:09:07 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I merged that. Thanks to all involved
19:09:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It should be ready to do
19:09:18 <jugglinmike> s/to do/to go/
19:09:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are two others that are waiting on review from me
19:09:53 <jugglinmike> Subtopic: Next publication date
19:10:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'd like to target the end of February
19:10:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That would be two weeks from today
19:10:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we'll have "feed", "coverage report", "skipto" and at least one more
19:10:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Does anyone see any reason we couldn't meet that deadline?
19:10:45 <jugglinmike> Jem: Sounds doable to me!
19:11:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, hearing no objections, we'll work toward preparing a release on February 26th
19:11:33 <jugglinmike> howard-e: that sounds fine to me
19:11:44 <jugglinmike> Topic: Auto-updating of coverage and quality report
19:12:19 <jugglinmike> Jem: It looks like there is a preview for this
19:12:28 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: yes, thank you arigilmore!
19:12:56 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Whatever the date of the last commit is the date that will show up on the page
19:13:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The script is triggered by a workflow that runs in response to a commit to the branch
19:13:27 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Does the visual presentation look good to everyone?
19:13:38 <jugglinmike> Jem: Looks good to me
19:14:07 <jugglinmike> howard-e: there is a bit of whitespace which appears at the beginning of the HTML "p" tag, though
19:14:14 <jugglinmike> arigilmore: I can remove that, no problem
19:14:33 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then I will merge this, and it can be included in the next publication. Fantastic!
19:15:04 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Are there any concerns about the failing checks?
19:15:42 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I'll do some quick checks and comment in the pull request
19:18:37 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Erika from Bocoup has submitted a pull request to address the first failure
19:18:56 <jugglinmike> howard-e: The second failure is a bit more puzzling, so I'm going to need to investigate more deeply
19:19:07 <jugglinmike> arigilmore: Can you run the script again and then push that change?
19:19:13 <jugglinmike> arigilmore: Sure
19:19:33 <jugglinmike> Topic: Issue triage process
19:20:28 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/Issue-Triage-Process
19:20:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I haven't written the wiki page related to issue severity and prioritization, yet
19:20:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I wanted to begin with the triage process
19:21:18 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is my proposal. You can shoot as many holes in it as you want!
19:21:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think we should form a group of people specifically tasked to clean up the issue tracker
19:23:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are four primary steps in this process: intake (totally asynchronous), bug reproduction (if there is a bug--also totally asynchronous), prioritization (in a meeting), and finally "close or reprioritize"
19:23:30 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We'd review the team membership on a regular basis (who's on the team, who wants to be on the team, who leads the team, etc.)
19:25:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm hoping to involve the people who aren't ready to write code but who still want to contribute
19:26:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Let's dive into details
19:26:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For each of the steps in "intake", the work is done asynchronously
19:26:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'd expect these steps to be performed at least once a week
19:27:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There are a lot of steps, but they are fairly quick. The whole "intake" process ought to take about 15 minutes
19:28:08 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: this process doesn't handle every possible kind of issue. There are a lot of other kinds of issues in the system, but here, you only consider the stuff that's applicable
19:29:56 <jugglinmike> Jem: I think step number 6 could be moved as a sub-step to step 4, "if it is a bug"
19:31:02 <jugglinmike> Jem: So the issue will have at least three labels?
19:31:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's right
19:33:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We only add the "agenda" label to bugs if we find that it's not reproducible
19:37:41 <jugglinmike> s/not reproducible/reproducible/
19:37:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I need to add another step to describe what to do if it's not reproducible
19:38:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The next part is "prioritization"
19:38:52 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We'll use a prioritization framework that has yet to be defined
19:40:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll write out the steps for assigning work, but I think the assignment is the part that should happen during meetings
19:41:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In the past, I think this Task Force has struggled partly because we haven't fully recognized the work that can be done asynchronously. Embracing those should make our meetings more efficient
19:43:43 <jugglinmike> Jem: Do we really need a label named "feedback"? Under this process, won't all the issues have that label?
19:44:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: There will be issues that don't fit this process and which won't receive the "feedback" label
19:44:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: For instance, questions
19:45:56 <jugglinmike> Jem: It would be good to define the "feedback" label, to capture the distinction between "internal feedback" and feedback that comes from outside the Task Force and the APG community
19:46:12 <jugglinmike> Jem: A definition for every label would be nice, actually
19:46:24 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/Labels-for-Issues-and-Pull-Requests
19:46:41 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Definitely. GitHub supports assigning a description to labels, and I agree we should use that feature
19:47:55 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think the next big thing (after we work out the details) would be forming a team of people who can coordinate asynchronously and trade responsibilities
19:48:29 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's just a thought I have on how this could work. The process would be always running and would be always open to relative newcomers--even folks without any relevant engineering experience
19:49:23 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Is anyone excited about leading such a team?
19:49:31 <jugglinmike> Jem: I could do so if no one is interested
19:49:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Leadership doesn't have to be static. There could be a rotating group of leaders
19:51:08 <jugglinmike> Jem: We were supposed to have three members in the "editors" team. We've been missing a third for a long time. Would this be a good time to fill the third spot?
19:51:31 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: In fact, we don't have to have three editors
19:52:01 <jugglinmike> Jem: Sharing the responsibilities a bit more would reduce some pressure, though
19:53:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Sure, though designation of an editor with W3C is a somewhat formal process, so I don't know if we want to tie it into the process we've been discussing today
19:53:14 <jugglinmike> present+ CurtBellew
19:53:43 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: I appreciate the process that you've proposed today, Matt_King
19:53:54 <jugglinmike> CurtBellew: Leadership of the new group sounds like a good opportunity for me
19:54:10 <jugglinmike> s/for me/for me to take/
19:55:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We currently have 559 open issues. That's a lot! If we had a slow, steady burn, we could make some great strides
19:55:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I suspect there is a lot of junk in that list. After closing those and assigning priorities to others, we might stand a chance of addressing the highest priority issues relatively soon
19:56:21 <jugglinmike> dmontalvo: I think this is good. Hopefully it will help us achieve the goals
19:56:45 <jugglinmike> dmontalvo: I'd like to be part of the team. Maybe not to lead it, but certainly to contribute asynchronously on a regular basis
19:57:06 <jugglinmike> Jem: Thank you!
19:57:11 <jugglinmike> present+ CoryJoseph
19:57:36 <jugglinmike> CoryJoseph: I've been away over the past month, but from what I'm seeing today, this all makes sense to me
19:58:09 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I don't have much to add; I agree that this is a good opportunity for a process
19:59:05 <jugglinmike> Jem: Great~
19:59:14 <jugglinmike> s/Great~/Great!/
19:59:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I think I have clear next steps, then
19:59:34 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Maybe next week, we can figure out the first rotation
20:00:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've got to finish up some of the documentation, and then next week, we can discuss how we want to proceed from there
20:01:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Thanks everyone for your input! Here's hoping this process helps things move forward in a faster, easier, and more inclusive way!
20:01:30 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
20:01:30 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Matt_King, arigilmore, howard-e, jugglinmike, JaeunJemmaKu, DanielMontalvo, CurtBellew, CoryJoseph
20:01:32 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
20:01:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/13-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim
20:01:42 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:01:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-apg
20:01:43 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
20:01:43 <RRSAgent> I see no action items