<Rachael> agenda order: 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
<Rachael> agenda order is 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
<ben> Joined early (in IRC) at least as I plan on giving scribing a go, first timer
<ben> scribe: ben
Rachael: Any introductions?
shadi: Thanks for survey
responses. We are trying to optimise ACT.
... We have 70 rules developed + in the pipeline. As long as
they are in the community group they are often
overlooked.
... We hope to change rules to publish proposed rules to
improve visibility before bringing them to AG so that
agreements can be shown.
... No change to thresholds, but this should streamline
processes + improve effectiveness.
Rachael: Do you want to go over anything on this call?
shadi: There is one comment from Rachael on objection resolution.
Rachael: I will take an action read over and get an answer to you on wording.
shadi: I will respond to GN015 objections on the survey.
Rachael: concerns have been raised on 2nd bullet.
<Rachael> examples: https://alastairc.uk/tests/wcag22-examples/focus-more-visible-5.html/results
<Rachael> Current text: https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/focus-appearance-minimum.html
Rachael: 4 people think thickness
should be increased, 9 to leave text as is.
... Mike, would you speak to your comments?
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to data
mbgower: Second point was intended to capture marker placed on one side, should four pixels be used instead?
alastairc: Nobody has done
detailed research. Thin borders aren't as impactful.
... We look at ease of implementation & context too, such
as single character links.
... Would be reasonable to increase thickness to 4css pixels.
Some indicators work better than others when looking at varying
width.
Rachael: Any other strong opinions?
<KimD> +1 to lack of clarity
mbgower: We should focus on clarity of what the intent of the criterion is.
Wilco_: What does thickness mean in an irregular shape?
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say isn't it always a rectangle?
alastairc: Thickness would measured from the length of the shortest side
mbgower: Isn't the focus rectangle always a rectangle?
alastairc: Circular indicators
exist, such as box shadow. Firefox implemented changes to
borders recently.
... We could consider using diameter instead.
Rachael: alastairc, what is your sense of which way to go with this straw poll?
<Rachael> StrawPoll: option 1 to leave SC as is, option 2 is to increase thickness requirement to 4px, option 3 is to consider wordsmithing
alastairc: Don't feel too strongly, would be good to know if you could live with all options.
<Wilco_> 3
<JakeAbma> 1
<mbgower> 3 (can live with others)
<GN015> 1
<Chuck_> 1
<johnkirkwood> 3
<david-macdonald> 1
<juliette_mcshane> 1
<MelissaD> 3
<MelanieP> 3
<Rain> 2, can live with all options
<mbgower> can live with any :)
<oliverK> 1
Rachael: Can Wilco_ live with other options?
Wilco_: No
<MarcJohlic> 3 - can live with other options
<Detlev> Can live with all options
<KarenHerr> can live with 1 or 3
<KimD> 3
<laura> 1 Can live with all options
Rachael: alastairc proposed diameter/radius. Are there any other suggestions for wordsmithing?
alastairc: What's the alternative? Does the 2nd bullet undermine the area aspect?
Wilco_: How can it undermine the area?
<alastairc> Draft of the current text, including quite a few of the updates: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KAo-6ID3NlVwdGl7uyjnlM_c28kBoizkjIdC8GXLwn4/edit#heading=h.q1znckui8nn0
mbgower: Should we sub-label the sub-bullets? The bullets contradict each other.
alastairc: The bullets could result in different areas, where 2nd is not providing enough area.
Rachael: Should we defer this?
<mbgower> "all of the following are true"
Wilco_: The answer you gave was clear but is not expressed in the google document.
alastairc: The first bullet in the document incorporates some of the suggestions.
<Chuck_> +1 to review rest of survey
Rachael: Suggest that we move
onto the next topic
... Any missed comments to call out before we move on?
alastairc: I would like to discuss in more detail after the other survey questions.
<Rachael> orignal: The offset between adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, where the offset is measured from the farthest
<Rachael> porposed revision: The offset from a target, to every adjacent target is at least 24 CSS pixels,
Rachael: 7 agree with updated
wording, 5 want to keep, 3 want something else
... Wilco, will you speak to your point?
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15dOWrY08WXWvzdmRNFoFYF1odpTu3WYbexNm06FOhuI/edit
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to try and short-cut the options
<Chuck_> Wilco's suggestion: farthest point of one target to the nearest point of the other target
<alastairc> Spacing: The _target offset_ is at least 24 CSS pixels.
<alastairc> Target offset: the distance measured from the farthest point of a target, to the nearest point of the second target. Offset includes the target and spacing around the target. The offset from A to B may be different then the offset from B to A, if the size of these targets differs.
alastairc: Considering putting
target offset into its own definition
... If we place it in a definition, we can expand on the
description.
Rachael: Straw poll. Thoughts on adding a new definition?
<david-macdonald> +1
<Chuck_> +1 to pick up
+1
<Rachael> proposal: use target offset and define
<Detlev> +1 looks net
<Rain> +1
<Detlev> neat
<sarahhorton> +1
<MarcJohlic> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<Rachael> +1
<mbgower> +1 (I think it works, with caveats)
<laura> +1
<GN015> -0.5
<JakeAbma> +1
<MelissaD> +1
Rachael: GN015 speak to your -0.5?
GN015: I don't feel the definition is needed.
Rachael: What caveats?
<Wilco_> +1
mbgower: It is not clear when you measure in every direction. We need to wordsmith to clarify what we are measuring.
Rachael: alastairc are you comfortable with voting next week?
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: Use "target offset" and work on definition via email list for next week
alastairc: Yes
<sarahhorton> +1
<Chuck_> +1
<Rain> +1
+1
<laura> +1
<MarcJohlic> +1
<MelanieP> +1
<mbgower> +.5
<Wilco_> 0, I think we can spend a few min on it
<Rachael> +1
Rachael: If you wish to speak, put yourself on queue.
RESOLUTION: Use "target offset" and work on definition via email list for next week
alastairc: If we have time, suggest wordsmithing at the end of the agenda.
Rachael: alastairc has drafted a response, should we accept? 2 agree, mbgower is down as "something else"
mbgower: I think GN015 point is true. Not much connecting title and normative text. I think alastairc suggestion of using "Page Break Navigation" works.
<Chuck_> MG's "something else:" 2.4.13 Page Break Navigation For web content with page break locators, a mechanism is available to navigate to each locator.
mbgower: I note that the page break locator definition is not great.
<johnkirkwood> +1
<alastairc> Changing title is ok for me, the conversation had moved to the SC text
Rachael: Thoughts on changing the title?
<Rachael> 1) accept response, title and text 2) change the title to page break navigation
<johnkirkwood> 2
<Rain> 2
<MelissaD> 2
<Chuck_> 2, can live with 1
<GN015> 2
<mbgower> 2
<MarcJohlic> 2
<juliette_mcshane> 2
<alastairc> 2, can live with 1
2
<JakeAbma> 2
<sarahhorton> 2
<laura> 2
<MelanieP> 2
<KarenHerr> 2
Rachael: Is the updated response acceptable GN015 ?
GN015: Fine with me
RESOLUTION: Accept MG's suggestion to change title to "Page Break Navigation", and to update response accordingly
<Rachael> Pull Request: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1659/files
Rachael: 3 agree, 1 something else, 1 adjustment
david-macdonald: There may be some other exception that comes up if we change the wording.
Wilco_: I don't understand why we think the password is essential. Is the reason that we want to show the password?
<Wilco_> Note: Re-entry of information that should never be displayed, such as a password is considered essential.
Rachael: I thought that this related to entering a new password for the first time.
<alastairc> Suggest 'not' instead of 'never', in Wilco's: "Note: Re-entry of information that should not be displayed, such as a password, is considered essential."
mbgower: david-macdonald proposed a new wording. The only way an author can confirm the user entered what they meant to is by asking them to repeat the password.
<johnkirkwood> Not only to remember it, but to avoid errors/accidental key stroke.
Rachael: I have also seen this with email with the same purpose.
Rain: Can the concerns be addressed by adding "For example:"?
<mbgower> +1 to what Rain is saying
<johnkirkwood> +1
Rain: I'm in favour of the idea, but understand the concerns that have been raised.
<mbgower> An example of an essential exception is asking a user to re-enter a new password to confirm the string"
<GN015> +1 to Rain
alastairc: Passwords are a special case. This SC would apply to the email example
Wilco_: I don't think we all understand the exception in the same way.
<Rain> +1 to mbgower's rewording above
Wilco_: It's not clear when the exception applies, it should be tighter to avoid it being left open to interpretation.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say address in understanding too
mbgower: Security versus re-entering password should be added to the understanding document
<Rachael> propsoal: An example of an essential exception is asking a user to re-enter a new password to confirm the string
<david-macdonald> +1
<KarenHerr> +1
<Rain> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Wilco_> -1
<mbgower> +1
<MelanieP> 1
<laura> +1
<GN015> +1
<MelissaD> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Chuck_> +.5
<Fazio> 0
<oliverK> +1
<johnkirkwood> mis keying as well
<Fazio> +1 to security
<alastairc> Note: Re-entry of information that should not be displayed, such as a password is considered essential.
alastairc: anticipating Wilco_. Is this focusing on security access or the re-entering? There may be less feasible ways to enter a password.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that some instances are to validate accuracy
<Wilco_> +1
Fazio: You could say that everything is essential. We want to avoid that. What about "show password" toggles?
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I'm okay to take this away and add additions to Understanding as part of same PR
mbgower: I'm happy to take PR and turn it into an understanding document.
<Fazio> Thanks Wilco
<Fazio> +1 Wilco
<ChrisLoiselle_> scribe: ChrisLoiselle_
<ben> Wilco_: You can treat anything as essential. Target security or target passwords instead of a blanket essential terms.,
Alastair: The security aspect is what we want to focus on. The essential exception is needed.
Security makes a massive difference.
<Fazio> integrity?
Email aspect possibly, but if it comes under security, some variation is fine.
Request for a reasonable draft for next week if possible.
<Fazio> in terms of answer integrity for the word game example
<Fazio> +1
Rachael: Do you have enough information to do that, MikeG?
<alastairc> DavidF: "essential: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform"
MikeG: Yes.
<Fazio> thx Mike
<Rachael> ACTION: mbgower to rework SC
Rachael: Pronoun persona discussion, we are down to three options.
<Rachael> Option 1) Include the gender statement only in Tal
<Rachael> Option 1) Include the gender statement only in Tal
<Rachael> Option 2) Include the gender statement in all personas
<Rachael> Option 3) Do not add a pronoun statement to any persona
<Rachael> option 4) Adding the pronoun statement in a few personas
DavidF: I think it confusing if we are listing in one, but not others. I.e. all or none.
+1 to DavidF
Gundula: To remove the gender statement from personas, I didn't recognize the option.
Rachael: That talks to option 3.
MikeG: Talking to gender statement vs. pronoun statement and clarification on text used.
Rachael: Pronoun statements should be used for the text in all options, vs. gender statement.
MikeG: I thought that the way this was handled, as a non gender specific pronoun, serves the purpose.
<Rachael> Options (revised): 1) Include the pronoun statement only in Tal 2) Include the pronoun statement in all personas 3) Do not add a pronoun statement to any persona 4) Adding the pronoun statement in a few personas
<alastairc> +1 to Mike's comments
<mbgower> option 1
Jennie: Does number 4 come with a clarifying statement to as why we are doing this?
Rachael: No clarifying statement
Wilco: Will we use Tal everywhere or would we use the word they?
Rachael: We use Tal at least once and then use they. We can discuss further if we need to.
<JF> +1 David - I have that concern too
DavidMacD: Many groups may not be aware of gender issues. Asserting gender as a disability category may be confusing the issue.
<MarcJohlic> +1 to David
<Fazio> I heaar you DM
<Fazio> JF has a point
<GN015> +1 to JF
JF: I want to plus one DavidMacD. My specific example was Iran and that it is viewed as a medical issue with surgery as a way to fix. It is not a cognitive disability and I'm worried about conflating issues.
<MarcJohlic> +1 to JF as well
<MelissaD> +1 to JF as well
Rain: I tried to do due diligence on this issue. It is around gender dysphoria. To step back a moment, Laura did post some in progress guidelines .
<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style#Personas_and_use_cases
We have a large number of personas.
Regarding research, on non binary identification has problems around neuro diverse community.
It gives people reading this that they are able to recognize themselves while reading our text.
scribe: I work with a lot of
neuro diverse individuals. The name choice came up frequently a
lot.
... if we go with just the name, Tal, we acknowledge , and is
subtle enough.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to translations
scribe: It would also align with Laura's link and research as well on other related guidelines.
<laura> +1 to rain
<johnkirkwood> +1 to Rain
AlastairC: There was discussion on translations. I think Rain's points would help resolve that issue.
Chuck: I find the options are valid, all of them have good points. I do have a preference to defer to the authors , as COGA has drafted the document.
Rachael: COGA has gone through this process and it what came to AGWG.
BenT: In a real world tester user, the tester would confirm what the preferred pronoun statement would be for the user.
<JF> +1 David
DavidF: I recognize that
representation is important. We need to be careful on talking
to gender vs. mental capacity and disabilities.
... it has to be clear that it doesn't relate to COGA related
impairments .
... is the preference really relevant? We don't want to imply
anything . Representation does matter, but wanted to separate
the two.
JF: Plus one.
... I respect to points made. Well rounded personas that relate
to a lot of people is key to personas.
<Glenda> +1 to Option 3) Do not add a pronoun statement to any persona (after hearing Rain say that a gender neutral name with no pronouns used…is a smart way to do this).
<Fazio> We need to be careful not to imply that this has any relevance to cognitive aaccessibility.
<Rachael> Options (revised): 1) Include the pronoun statement only in Tal 2) Include the pronoun statement in all personas 3) Do not add a pronoun statement to any persona 4) Adding the pronoun statement in a few personas
JF: We are providing this as contextual information, but we aren't invoking persona as it relates to the COGA related impairments.
<david-macdonald> 3
<Jennie> 3
<JakeAbma> 3
<GN015> 3
<ben> 1 3 4
<MarcJohlic> 3
MikeG: Is this with the presumption that Tal's persona is with Tal's name only?
<oliverK> 3
<Chuck_> 1, 2, 3, 4, with my personal preference of 3
<Rain> 3, and can live with 2
<juliette_mcshane> 3
<johnkirkwood> 1,2,4
<JF> I can live with 3 or 4; if we go with 3 then we also confirm that the pronoun choice has nothing to do with cognitive disabilities
Rachael: It is defined as Tal, then "they" is mentioned as the second pronoun .
<Detlev> can live with any
<KimD> 2 and only refer to Tal by name
<Fazio> they implies more than 1
<laura> 1 2 4
<sarahhorton> 1, 3
<Fazio> so I would say no to that
Rachael: They, them their is also used, but not as frequent.
<mbgower> 1, 3
<MelissaD> 1, 3, 4
<MelanieP> 3
<Caryn> 1, 2, 4
<Wilco_> 1, 3, 4
Rachael: For the people who cannot live with option 3, please go on queue
<Fazio> +1 MG
<Fazio> +1
<Rachael> Proposal: Do not include any pronoun statements and only use Tal (no pronounts).
MikeG: I put down as 3, if Tal is the name used, then the pronoun statement is not used, as Tal is a proper name. Without a pronoun statement for Tal, it gets confusing.
<laura> +1 MG
<Fazio> I agree with MG
<JF> can live with that
<Chuck_> +1
<Rain> +1
<mbgower> +1
<Glenda> +1 to the latest proposal
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<AWK> +1
<MelissaD> +1
<MarcJohlic> +1
<Jennie> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<GN015> prefer 3, but can live with it
<Fazio> +1
<Wilco_> -.5
<KarenHerr_> +1
<david-macdonald> +1
<ben> -0.5
Proposal: Do not include any pronoun statements and only use Tal (no pronouns).
<laura> +1
<alastairc> can live with
<Fazio> they implies 2 or more
BenT: I don't know why it be bad to use "they" in the paragraph. It seems to be ok to me.
<JF> In french there is il/elle and ils /elles Which are all essentially derivatives of "they"
Chuck: I think there would be some translation issues for non Western languages or cultures.
Rachael: To Wilco
<KimD> +1 to missed opportunity
<Rachael> -.5 Missed opportunity
Wilco: I think that it is a missed opportunity , but I can live with what is being expressed.
<johnkirkwood> +1 to missed opportunity
<laura> +1 to missed opportunity
SarahH: One part of the conversation that is missing is pronoun preferences. We are talking about pronouns. We are talking toward Tal's pronoun. Not using it, makes Tal's aspect invisible or invalid. I think we should stop thinking that it is a preference.
Glenda: I think no use of pronoun is ok. I think of using the pronoun is a learning moment and even though it could be hard, it is a learning moment.
<johnkirkwood> ‘They’ will not create confusion anymore.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say introducing confusion into a document isn't the goal
SarahH: Tal established that they want to use their pronoun. Option 1 or 3 recognizes that.
MikeG: Tal is a persona , thus it is abstract. If the preference is for first person name, then that is what we are following. On the word use of "they" , it may add confusion on a cognitive document.
<Glenda> Would y’all be okay if all the personas were male?
<Fazio> It can aalso suggest that "they" indicates a kind of cognitive impairment
MikeG: First person pronoun and grammatical aspects it is confusing. The persona is not for one person's individual preference.
<laura> Merriam-Webster Adds Gender-Neutral Pronouns to Dictionary https://time.com/5679132/merriam-webster-gender-neutral-dictionary/
Glenda: Would you be ok if all personas where male?
Rachael: That captures the diversity aspect of what we we are talking to.
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask what are the persona requirements for this individual that COGA created?
SarahH: We want to represent the end users. Gender identity are an important part of that.
Chuck: How did COGA create this persona? What are the preferences of the COGA created persona Tal?
Rachael: They feel that it is
important.
... We will take this back to COGA .
<KimD> +100 to David
RESOLUTION: Use TAL's name and no pronouns for TAL, and to not create a pronoun statement.
DavidF: This is a document that has been in work for seven years. Is this something would hold it up? We are trying to make it as best as we can and want it to be published.
<Wilco_> -1
<JF> +1
Rachael: Wilco?
Wilco: I think it is a missed opportunity and I'm uncomfortable with it.
<KimD> +1 to Wilco - I agree
<ben> -1 (+1 to Wilco)
<johnkirkwood> +1 to Wilco
<laura> +1 to Wilco - I agree
<sarahhorton> +1 to Wilco
<Caryn> Another +1 to Wilco
Rachael: We are sending it back, stating we want gender diversity. We are stating that name and pronouns are ways of recognizing. Is the concern around the removal of word "they"?
<johnkirkwood> +1 to Wilco
<johnkirkwood> don’t remove ‘they
BenT: Yes.
<Fazio> +1 JF
<alastairc> JF - personas are supposed to be representative, that includes culture, gender, etc.
<johnkirkwood> disagree with JF, it shows being responsible here. it should be done other plases as well, though. It’s not an opportunity its a responsiblity
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say that we are asking Coga if they are comfortable shifting persona preference from "they" to name.
<KimD> -1 to JF; I still think it's a miss if this group deletes gender diversity
<Caryn> It feels to me that a group of people entirely comprised of nonbinary folks should be making this decision.
<KimD> +1 to Caryn
<KimD> +1 to Rachael
<KarenHerr_> +1 Rachael
<laura> +1 Agree this RM argument for promoting diversity in this document.
<Glenda> +1 Caryn
<Chuck_> +1000 to let them make this call
<Chuck_> scribe: Chuck
<Chuck_> david fazio: I like the compromise of just the name. We discussed this, it's impossible for us to include total diversity for every country. I have an issue of "they/them", as it implies plural.
<Rachael> Rachael: I do not want to send this back and tell COGA to remove the diversity. Diversity will increase in all documents over time. We just happen to be early on.
<Glenda> “They” and “them” USED to mean plural. That is so yesterday, my friend.
<Wilco_> -1 meaning of words change
<Chuck_> david fazio: This could confuse those not familiar with western culture. We need to make sure we are careful, and not implying things that don't exist.
<JF> @glenda, it's the world wide web, not the western world web (just sayin')
<Chuck_> david fazio: It does happen, and we need to be careful. Focusing on the name, it is a legitimate choice and a fair compromise.
<AWK> I'm confident that our readers will be able to figure out that they is singular in this case.
<KimD> +100 to Kirkwood
<Chuck_> jk: The time has come, it's time to do it. It's antiquated to not have a "they/them" persona. Not having it is offputting to think that this is a conversation we are having.
<Glenda> +1 to what John Kirkwood is saying.
<laura> +1 to what John Kirkwood
<Chuck_> jk: Businesses, govt orgs, are all dealing with this. It's important to be forward thinking, and the time is now.
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: ag recommends removing all pronoun statements and that coga consider making all references in the Tal persona use Tal instead of a pronoun but defer to COGA's decision
<Fazio> I think that's the problem neurodiversity doesn't include gender identity
<Fazio> gender iddentity is not aa disaability. That's xactly the confusion this creates
<Chuck_> jf: I want to remind everyone it's the World wide web and not the Western wide web. In the western culture we are becoming more enlightened, but we are a world wide standards organization.
<Glenda> JF, would you be okay if all of these personas were female?
<alastairc> Fazio - As Rain mentioned, there seems to be more gender diversity in the neuro-diverse population. It's not a disability, but it is representative.
<laura> Their, them, themselves, they (as singular pronouns): https://grammarist.com/usage/they/
<Glenda> And translators in other countires can handle this as they need.
<Chuck_> jf: I am in favor of taking our docs and expressing these ideals. "They/them" may be ok in western cultures, but I don't think we should make decisions that are restrictive.
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: ag recommends removing all pronoun statements and that coga consider making all references in the Tal persona use Tal instead of a pronoun but defer to COGA's decision
<Wilco_> -1
<Chuck_> Rachael: We are re-discussing our points and positions, let's vote on the resolution.
<KimD> -1
<laura> -1
<Chuck_> 0
<JakeAbma> 0
<sarahhorton> -1
<ben> -1
<Glenda> -1
<Francis_Storr> -1
<johnkirkwood> -1
<mbgower> 0
<AWK> -1
<JF> +.75 (I don't have a huge issue with the use of they/them if we avoid the preference statement)
<Detlev> 0
<GN015> +1
<KarenHerr_> +1 Chuck
<Fazio> +1
<Caryn> +1 Chuck
<johnkirkwood> +1
<KimD> +1 Chuck - let COGA decide
<KimD> +1 Ben
<Chuck_> ben: Quick point on internationalization. If we want to go through this sentence with a fine tooth comb, we should do that for every word and phrase in the doc.
<Fazio> we have worked with internationalization
<Rachael> Proposed resolution: Let COGA make the decision
<Caryn> +1
<ben> +1
<Wilco_> +1
<Chuck_> +1
<Rain> +1
<Fazio> +1
<KimD> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<ChrisLoiselle> I think that how COGA is talked to here https://www.w3.org/WAI/people-use-web/abilities-barriers/#cognitive breaks it down well. Inclusion and diversity can be referenced here https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-usability-inclusion/
<mbgower> +1 about the use of the Tal persona
<Glenda> +1
<Jennie> +1
<KimD> -1 JF
<Chuck_> jf: My preference would be that we remove the pronoun statement and leave the decision on they/them to Coga. That splits the hair.
<MarcJohlic> +1 to JF's proposal
<Chuck_> jf: There are two decisions here. If we split them apart, and remove the preference statement, and leave the they/them/their at discretion of task force.
<Chuck_> rachael: You don't want to defer the pronoun statement to Coga?
<Chuck_> jf: I don't want to have both questions combined.
<Chuck_> Michael: This is beyond the expertise of this group. We should defer to those with better knowledge. My understanding is that Coga has made that effort.
<Fazio> +1MC
<KimD> +1 MC
<Chuck_> Michael: We could reach out to others if we decide, but this decision should not come from this group.
<Caryn> +1 Michael
<laura> +1 MC
<johnkirkwood> +1 MC
<Rachael> Proposed resolution 1: Defer decision about the pronoun statement to COGA
<Wilco_> +1
<Chuck_> +1
<Caryn> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<ben> +1
<KimD> +1 to defer pronoun
<mbgower> +1
<Rain> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<alastairc> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Jennie> +1
<AWK> +1
<Fazio> +1
<Detlev> 0
<Francis_Storr> +1
<Rachael> Proposed resolution 2: Defer decision about use of Tal vs they/them/their to coga.
<Chuck_> +1
<Wilco_> +1
<Fazio> +1
<Caryn> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
<ben> +1
<Detlev> 0
<KimD> +1 to deferring to COGA
<Rain> +1
<Jennie> +1
<juliette_mcshane> +1
<JF> -1 to the first, +1 to the second
<Francis_Storr> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<mbgower> +1 defer to Coga for the decision
<Chuck_> jf: First proposed resolution is about deferring to Coga. The point there is that right now we only have it once. I have a concern of tokenism. If coga decides to include this, I'd like to see that content echo'd once or twice to normalize the usage.
<Chuck_> jf: Once is tokenism.
<Chuck_> jf: That could cycle back to "is this related to the cognitive disability"?
<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask that we are giving Coga a lot of rich and diverse opinions
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we take unresolved questions to IDCG
<Fazio> +1 MC
<laura> +1 to MC take unresolved questions to IDCG
<JF> I can live with that
<Chuck_> alastair: Does anyone else ... would like a quick session on Thursday to discuss focus appearance and discuss next week?
<Chuck_> wilco: Yes, I was going to suggest the same thing.
<Chuck_> Rachael: We can wrap up, we have a plan.
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/targe/target/ Succeeded: s/understand/understanding/ Default Present: alastairc, Ben, Laura_Carlson, LisaSeemanKest, JF, Jennie, KarenHerr, MarcJohlic, JakeAbma, ChrisLoiselle, Raf, MelanieP, Rachael, Nicaise, juliette_mcshane, johnkirkwood, Matt, Orr, Caryn, Rain, Fazio, sarahhorton_, AWK, Sukriti, mbgower, david-macdonald, Detlev, Katie_Haritos-Shea, StefanS, Jennie_take2, jon_avila, Francis_Storr, GN, Chuck_, ChrisLoiselle_, oliverK, shadi, sarahhorton, Wilco_, stevelee, Glenda, .5 Present: alastairc, Ben, Laura_Carlson, LisaSeemanKest, JF, Jennie, KarenHerr, MarcJohlic, JakeAbma, ChrisLoiselle, Raf, MelanieP, Rachael, Nicaise, juliette_mcshane, johnkirkwood, Matt, Orr, Caryn, Rain, Fazio, sarahhorton_, AWK, Sukriti, mbgower, david-macdonald, Detlev, Katie_Haritos-Shea, StefanS, Jennie_take2, jon_avila, Francis_Storr, GN, Chuck_, ChrisLoiselle_, oliverK, shadi, sarahhorton, Wilco_, stevelee, Glenda, .5, GN015 Regrets: Charles H., Justine, Bruce, Sukriti, Nicaise Found Scribe: ben Inferring ScribeNick: ben Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle_ Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle_ Found Scribe: Chuck Scribes: ben, ChrisLoiselle_, Chuck ScribeNicks: ben, ChrisLoiselle_ WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: mbgower WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]