18:57:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #aria-apg
18:57:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/20-aria-apg-irc
18:57:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
18:57:54 <Zakim> Meeting: ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force
18:57:54 <Matt_King> present+
18:57:54 <Matt_King> CHAIR: Jemma
18:57:54 <Matt_King> rrsagent, make minutes
18:57:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/20-aria-apg-minutes.html Matt_King
19:02:02 <jugglinmike> jugglinmike has joined #aria-apg
19:02:39 <Jem> Jem has joined #aria-apg
19:03:54 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
19:03:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/20-aria-apg-minutes.html Jem
19:04:11 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/February-20%2C-2024-Agenda
19:05:09 <jugglinmike> present+ jugglinmike
19:05:12 <jugglinmike> scribe+ jugglinmike
19:05:35 <howard-e> howard-e has joined #aria-apg
19:05:41 <jugglinmike> Topic: Setup and Review Agenda
19:05:44 <howard-e> present+
19:05:59 <Jem> present+
19:06:04 <jugglinmike> Jem: With only five people present, this may be an abbreviated meeting
19:06:14 <Matt_King> regrets+ Jon
19:06:35 <Jem> present+
19:06:45 <jugglinmike> Next meeting: February 27
19:06:56 <jugglinmike> Topic: Next publication
19:07:13 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We have two infrastructure-related patches ready
19:07:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: One is about enforcing code quality upon merging
19:07:53 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The other is a change to the skipTo library
19:08:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's everything that I'm aware of which is currently ready or about to be ready
19:08:25 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We want to cut the publication branch for those things on next Monday (February 26)
19:08:56 <jugglinmike> Jem: Nick has been helping us, but he has not been able to attend this meeting
19:09:19 <jugglinmike> Jem: Our thanks to Nick!
19:09:47 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Regarding the coverage report which was merged: there was a failing build (Nick also commented on that about an hour ago)
19:10:33 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Nick is suggesting here that when a pull request affects the examples is merged to the "main" branch, it has to be merged on the same date that is referenced
19:10:57 <jugglinmike> howard-e: That doesn't seem feasible; it means asking contributors to always run the coverage report before submitting their patch
19:11:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Should I revert the merge?
19:11:47 <jugglinmike> howard-e: The "main" branch is failing because the date is stale
19:12:05 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That wouldn't normally happen, right? Isn't it only happening because we ran it manually?
19:12:48 <jugglinmike> howard-e: If someone were to modify the Alert pattern on one day, and the reviewer approves it the next day, then when they merge the patch, it will fail
19:13:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I thought this script only re-runs the coverage report at the time that any pull request is merged. So if I merged to the "main" branch, the workflow will re-run the report at that time. Isn't that right?
19:13:52 <jugglinmike> howard-e: it re-runs it, but it doesn't push the updated date back to the repository
19:15:08 <jugglinmike> howard-e: it works now because it gets updated whenever a contributor pushes to their branch. The problem comes in when a patch is merged more than one day after the final commit is pushed
19:16:26 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We already maintain a date like this for the index page. Can we update the workflow to work the same way?
19:16:33 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I think so, yes
19:16:44 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Sounds like we need a new patch
19:17:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: The script seems to be working; we just need to change how we schedule its invocation
19:19:21 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I think we can solve this by ignoring the workflow in response to "push" to the main branch
19:21:01 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: That sounds like the opposite of how we solved this for the date listed in the index
19:24:48 <jugglinmike> howard-e: When should we capture the date? When the contributor makes their changes, or when the pull request is merged to the "main" branch?
19:24:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: When the pull request is merged to the "main" branch
19:25:01 <jugglinmike> Jem: I agree
19:25:31 <Jem> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/bsUCatyX/
19:25:42 <Jem> this is the part Nick mentioned.
19:30:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Will it create more problems if I merge the "main" branch into the open pull requests for the examples right now?
19:30:25 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Yes, it will
19:30:37 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay, then I'll hold off on doing that until we have the fix in place
19:30:41 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/Issue-Triage-Process
19:30:49 <jugglinmike> Topic: Plan issue triage process kickoff
19:31:03 <jugglinmike> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/wiki/Issue-Triage-Process
19:31:50 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Since our last meeting, I added a paragraph to the summary of the "intake" process
19:32:45 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Likewise, I added a second paragraph to the following section ("Bug reproduction documentation process details")
19:33:10 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It seems that I forgot to add some text describing what happens in the event that the bug is not reproducible. I'll do that, next
19:33:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I simplified the first step of the "intake" process describing the determination of "in scope" versus "out of scope"
19:34:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I also simplified the third step--the one about categorizing the feedback
19:35:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I updated the labels to match these
19:38:35 <jugglinmike> [discussion about the current draft's two distinct definition of the term "out of scope"]
19:39:02 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll resolve that by qualifying each use of the term--"out of scope for the triage process" and "out of scope for APG"
19:40:57 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Or maybe we don't need the first two steps. Maybe we just start with step 3 and if it's not one of these five things, there could be another bucket...
19:42:19 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: After all, when we create issues for ourselves, we can add the appropriately labels immediately at that time. That way, those issues won't go through this triage process
19:43:46 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I've been trying to write this in such a way that we can handle both new issues and all the old issues (some of which already have labels)
19:44:38 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: So we might remove step 1 and 2, but we'll have to decide what to do with all those issues that have already gone through some form of a triage process
19:49:06 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: What's missing is that we don't have criteria for determining what's in-scope for the issue triage process
19:50:58 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't want to get too stuck on this problem right now. Let's assume that this part of the process will be ironed out in the next few days. What are the next steps for the team?
19:51:18 <jugglinmike> Jem: I'm willing to be the first leader of the triage team
19:51:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Great! What that means is coordinating the schedule for the rotation
19:51:54 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I imagine that includes intake and bug reproduction/documentation
19:52:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Also, there's deciding whether the team wants to have its own communication channel(s)
19:52:35 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if/how you want to handle that, or if you'd rather just do it all in the issues
19:53:02 <jugglinmike> Jem: A Slack channel sounds good to me. I think we already have a Slack channel for the APG under the W3C Slack account
19:53:56 <jugglinmike> Jem: I'll take responsibility for identifying a communication channel
19:54:21 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Alrighty. I'll keep thinking about how to debug the first part of the process document so that it's more clear
19:54:41 <jugglinmike> Topic: Fix to make combobox labels clickable
19:54:59 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2889
19:55:12 <jugglinmike> Jem: We need a code reviewer and a functional reviewer
19:55:16 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: It could be the same person
19:55:22 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is a very small pull request!
19:55:48 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I posted a question to the patch
19:58:47 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know why it changes the "label" element to a "div" element. I don't think it has any practical effect either way, but the "label" element seems more semantically accurate
19:59:12 <jugglinmike> Jem: Hearing no volunteers for review, we'll leave this on the agenda for next week
19:59:23 <jugglinmike> Topic: Link checker
19:59:32 <jugglinmike> github: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/pull/2931
19:59:53 <jugglinmike> howard-e: The link checker fails to find a GitHub link with an ID matching the anchor
20:00:23 <jugglinmike> howard-e: It worked once. The reason it no longer works is that there is a server-rendered element now rendered on that page which is not easily identified using the link checker implementation
20:00:37 <jugglinmike> howard-e: The server-side-rendered element seems to be hiding the one we want
20:01:47 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I have some thoughts about the stability of this solution, but I haven't reviewed the latest changes (Erika has made more changes since I last shared feedback)
20:01:54 <jugglinmike> howard-e: I will be taking a look again this week
20:03:03 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is really about testing the fragment part of the link. We're not worried about the link checker failing because the URL of the page is wrong. It's just that if we specify a fragment and the fragment is invalid--that's a problem
20:03:12 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: We want to catch those kinds of errors when we can
20:06:24 <jugglinmike> Matt_King: Okay howard-e, you merge this when you think it's ready
20:06:27 <jugglinmike> howard-e: Will do
20:06:48 <jugglinmike> Zakim, end the meeting
20:06:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Matt_King, jugglinmike, howard-e, Jem
20:06:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
20:06:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/20-aria-apg-minutes.html Zakim
20:06:58 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, jugglinmike; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:06:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #aria-apg
20:07:04 <jugglinmike> RRSAgent, leave
20:07:04 <RRSAgent> I see no action items