<Chuck> Rachael, I'm in call if you wish to join early
<Chuck> Thanks so much Jen
<JenStrickland> scribe+
<Rachael> scribe: JenStrickland
Rachael: first announcement, we are standing up a small sub-group to work on revisions to conformance options. It will be a short, intensive, meeting at 8 am Eastern on Monday. Email chairs if interested.
First meeting on Feb 27
Next announcement: next week's wcag 3 survey
while a subgroup looks at conformance options, we want to look at guideline breakdown
sharing screen of proposal for organizing guidelines by use
the thinking behind it is we're putting similar outcomes together, then breaking down by scope, then final piece is the kind of expertise needed to work on that guideline
<bruce_bailey> Google doc on screen and survey is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsNS1z_WBt3Ey30m-At8V87jYeM65KoWSR7L3SRR3T4/
<Cyborg> how do we review that document?
we expect to end up with a set of exploratory outcomes. Note some also include an "also" section -- potential content that might fall under a guideline.
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/guideline-org/
survey open until Thursday.
Chuck: for any new members, we started a process a year ago to assess and improve our culture.
we did a review to find out how the improvements are going.
the first one is that we've changed our survey process, doing them earlier and closing a few business days ahead — allows us to review the results, work on editorial changes to avoid taking up meeting time on those, and focus meetings on substantive changes.
I found the process effective. Hopefully you do too, but we are certainly open to any feedback on the process.
we're looking for educational opportunities to help improve our skills and meeting management, creating safe environments, consensus building, etc.
another thing we'll do is we found we need experts, but they're not able to participate fully and engage in AGWG, so we're introducing a process where experts may participate in a community group targeted activities and subgroups without the full-time working group time.
we're also looking for specific milestones for equity, bringing in outside experts to lead that. Wendy and Tzviya are going to lead that group to bring in experts. We're also organizing onboarding meetings for new members, that's in progress.
<Jaunita_George> We should take folks through the history of WCAG 3.0
it'll focus on the code of ethics and professional conduct
<alastairc> scribe+ alastairc
<alastairc> JenStrickland: Sounds like the onboarding meeting would be for new members. Is there a plan for seasoned members attend as well? Assumptions on how things are run can be addressed. They get an update of the expectations are?
<jeanne> +1 Juanita about including the history of WCAG3. -- although I would have a hard time making it short! ;)
chuck: I hadn't thought of it in that context, but think it's an excellent idea. I know it's being constructed for new members, but think it could be good for seasoned members. Like Github, for example, I could use those lessons.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask about survey time
<Jaunita_George> I have a presentation we can use, but it's a little long
<bruce_bailey> +1 for allowing seasoned members attend, if only in listen mode
Rachael: we have started planning but not scheduled, maybe a Friday call of a chair's perspective on how we are trying to run things.
<Cyborg> yes please extend it - can we even extend to next tues?
Rachael: wanted to pivot to the closing the surveys on Thursday was hard, so wondered if we could extend through Friday.
<alastairc> scribe-
Chuck: that gives the chairs one business day to review and address, which doesn't give us a lot of time.
Chuck we are looking to have some hold days so that we have the Monday business day to focus.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on the size of surveys
Tzviya: I've been finding the size of the survey challenging.
+1
<alastairc> I'd note that we've got two different types of surveys: WCAG 2.x backlogs, and WCAG 3 topical surveys. Also, I think all the surveys can be submitted after just one question?
Rachael: I'd love to make sure that the survey is working properly, as I think it should allow submitting a partial survey.
Cyborg: My own reason for not completing the surveys is my own health challenges since I haven't been able to look at the screen so long.
<bruce_bailey> i revisit / resubmit survey answers frequently
I know when I was more active, I heard the complaint that folks who are in & out of participation it can be challenging to get back in.
I wonder if there's a mechanism to address that, where there's a chance to digest it.
Rachael: Thank you, one reason we're giving this new approach is to give more time to review the survey - a full week.
I think it has been hard for the group to adjust to the change in timing.
There will be many more chances to review.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to affirm that chair preparation has been noticeable
COGA is also doing a separate review of where we are, if you would like it.
<Cyborg> note: would like my health challenge to be stricken from the notes in the record here before it goes public (as well as this request line). thanks
Bruce: just wanted to affirm that giving the chairs a couple of business days to prepare has been a noticeable improvement.
+1
As a long timer, I'm disappointed there aren't more people commenting on the surveys. I will go in once to the survey and then go back in to reply to any comments.
Detlev: did you propose to extend to Friday?
Chuck: one thing that closing on Thursday would give us, then anything that might merit a conversation, it gave us the weekend to have conversations ahead of Monday.
<Detlev> I'm fine with Thursday too!
<bruce_bailey> i have also been appreciating reminders to listserv about new pattern
Gregg: I was going to say if you moved it to Saturday night it gave those who didn't have a chance during the week. However, I think the time the chairs are putting in… it's saying okay, work on Sunday… they're already putting in lots of time.
so I think I'm going to reverse myself and push back to Thursday.
maybe just remind folks on Tuesday and Wednesday.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to Gregg maybe not to take Friday away from chairs just yet
<alastairc> If it's open Thursday to thursday, that gives people 5 working days to enter info, and the Chairs 2 to digest and act on the info.
<GreggVan> +1 to reminding us on FRIDAY that there is a new survey open that closes next thursday
<Chuck> FYI, I've been taking notes on the various observations, and chairs will discuss in our planning calls.
<Rachael> ?
<alastairc> scribe+
<alastairc> JenStrickland: I'm also struggling with the length of the surveys, had the guidelines open for the last 4-5 days. But, I have seen the change in the quality of the meetings, so thursday's good.
Rachael: based on the conversation, I think we'll check in in a couple of weeks.
Gregg: maybe ask folks if they'd like 3 short surveys instead of one long one.
Rachael: we'll come back, def heard the long surveys are an issue.
Anything else?
We welcome your feedback. Feel free to email chairs with anything, or Michael if you prefer to reach out to staff.
Chuck: what she said!
Rachael: next topic
one things we change was breaking out the questions to be editorial and the other substantiative. It's made a huge difference. The edits were great. part of fixing things is standardizing the bullets, formatting and approach.
we've added those to our to do list. you may still see them in the draft as we move forward.
there were comments on scoring and developing conformance options.
Proposal is to take the guidelines content out, except for the examples — temporarily
we will be working on guidelines over the next few weeks./
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Remove all guidelines except exemplars
anyone have concerns about removing guidelines except exemplars?
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Wilco> +1
<jeanne> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
<ToddL> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
+1
<Ben_Tillyer> +1
<Cyborg> what is the reason for this?
The reason is to get to a publishable draft and reduce confusion.
<GreggVan> 0 not sure I understand exaclty what this would look like. would like to see it before I would understand ...
There's also a migration going on right now.
<Cyborg> 0 same as Gregg
<bruce_bailey> +1
So we don't have edit access currently.
<Laura> +1
<GreggVan> I am ok
<Cyborg> ok
So part of this is a technology cleanup as well as making sure everything is there and available.
<Chuck> Draft RESOLUTION: Remove all guidelines except exemplars
RESOLUTION: Remove all guidelines except exemplars
<Rachael> Clear Words/Language and Error Prevention as the first two exemplars
Next is around which 2… the two proposed are clear language and errors.
They've had the most work from a silver perspective.
<Cyborg> is there a way to see Clear Words as it is currently drafted? thanks
clear language has pieces that fit almost all the different things we want to try, then error prevention is a more known area from WCAG 2 and the team worked on that 6-8 months ago, phenomenal job.
Gregg: so we'll put out a working draft of WCAG3 that includes none of WCAG@ except on that's pretty obscure, nobody will recognize.
What's WCAG 3 gonna look like, this looks like nothing I've seen before. What happened to what we did before?
Rachael: the thought is this draft is to address issues, and do a targeted review of the conformance option — not a full review. It's a stage, we won't have it perfect.
Getting to a conformance option we all agree on.
If you think we need a third example, that's worth a conversation.
<alastairc> It comes down to how we frame the review, and we can work with Shawn at WAI on that.
Gregg: I see what you're doing and applaud it. I think we need to put a note on it with a query for feedback, rather than putting out WCAG 3 with nearly nothing in it.
We're thinking about this & that, and here are questions we have, here are two examples…
<Jaunita_George> We also have to come up with an easier way to explain the new standards. They're much more difficult to understand than WCAG 2.0
Rachael: that is the intent: here is what we're putting out not the world.
Cyborg: I talked about getting lost in the river… and I'd like to be involved in the next group about conformance model. I also recall there was a request to identify ways that AGWG would move toward equity separate from the W3C equity CG. I'm confused how the equity work that is needed within AGWG might shape the conversation around conformance model. and offer myself for conversations around conformance model.
Detlev: I'm concerned the next WCAG draft would contain less guidelines than the first draft. I think there were five before and many would be confused to see it shrink to 2.
I think it's possible to keep the conformance concept separate from the substantiative grouping of requirements.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we have already published both of these guidelines as WCAG3. And we will have the placeholders
Jeanne: I have a different take from Detlev. I was responding to Gregg . we already published these 2 exploratory WCAG guidelines.
They've been in wcag 3 for several years no so pulling the inaccurate ones out, to focus on the conformance model.
so the more we put in the more work we waste.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer about equity unless Rachael does
the other thing… the placeholders, the new placeholder guidelines, so people will have a better idea. These two will just show working out the conformance as an example.
Chuck: re the draft we put out now, I'd like to see us exercise our maturity levels we agreed to, level set, set the ground for more advanced content to come.
<alastairc> scribe+
I'd like to see us proceed but the one re equity is that stakeholders such as yourself are involved during the development of the content. Raise the equity concerns during the conformance model work.
Should we find through the equity subgroup that we're missing a lot…
<Chuck> There is not a subgroup, but there will be as needed, it will be created as all our subgroups are created, at specific times and have a 4 week span of time to review.
<Chuck> We don't have any standing subgroups, they are all created for short durations as needed.
<alastairc> JenStrickland: We don't currently have an AGWG equity sub-group. I heard that some experts might be brought in. Separately, when stripping down to 2 guideline examples I think that makes it clearer for folks. One big framing is that WCAG 3 is different from previous WCAGs. A big peice of that is the conformance model.
<alastairc> ... it's not wiping out the work before, it is making it clearer to people working on it.
<alastairc> ... in this draft - "This is what we anticipate."
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to differentiate "WCAG 3 draft" from review of WCAG 3 on conformance, and we have the editors version if people want to look at more 'tentative' guideliens.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest eliding non-review sections
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say now more confused. we are ONLY putting in things that are not done - and not including anything that is more established? We should at LEAST?
alastairc: agree with Jen & Chuck, building on slightly. I don't think we can put a parallel draft out, look at WCAG 3 conformance focused. we developed these maturity models, here's what we're reviewing and here's what we're not.
MichaelC: I think we can publish with sections removed for this version, indicate what isn't for review and what is.
Gregg: It sounded to me like we were going to include only things that are not done and weren't including more established stuff.
even alt text, we're talking about doing that in a very different way. it would be good to give people something straightforward.
Cyborg: I strongly encourage an equity review of the conformance model that is public, specific, and focused. ask for feedback on the equity impacts of a conformance model proposed, with clear example outcomes. alt text is an interesting one.
<Rachael> +1 to including equity review in the targeted review we are planning for
<Chuck> +1 to Cybele, and that's the plan!
<Laura> +1 to cybele
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k_rCBUVPQj2myECC06rQtnC1Mks_UsI5P9Wmpc4nBCk/edit#
having a clear output to the public, here's the proposed conformance model, if there are equity concerns, ways communities could be impacted, we are interested in knowing about that. in a clear, plain language explanation of the conf model with clear illustration of the difference at individual and macro level.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say review better than no review, and can´t make it perfect
included equity review and task force review in 1, expect reviews before publication.
<Rachael> strawpoll: 1) use clear language and error prevention 2) Use clear langauge and error prevention as well as 1
MichaelC: drafts are never perfect, it's better to seek review than not in spite of concerns we can address.
<alastairc> JenStrickland: Is there an equity sub group now?
Rachael: there ei s no active equity subgroup right this moment. we will stand up as needed.
<bruce_bailey> @gregg -- see steps 6/7/8 in above Google.doc to do list
<Cyborg> alt text?
<Rachael> strawpoll: 1) use clear language and error prevention 2) Use clear language and error prevention and 1 additional known guideline 3) use the existing examples 4) something else
Rachael: we have an option to use clear language and error prevention, and we have one addition to use…
1
<jeanne> 1
<Jaunita_George> 2 or 3
<sarahhorton> 1
<GreggVan> 2 or 3
<joweismantel> 1
<Chuck> 2, 1, 3
<Wilco> 1
<alastairc> 1, 2's ok if it doesn't hold things up.
<bruce_bailey> 1
<shadi> 1
<ShawnT> 1
<Detlev> 0
<Rachael> 1, 2 (not 3 because its more work than we could do in the next 6 months)
<wendyreid> 1
<Cyborg> 4
<Poornima> scribe: Poornima
<Laura> 0
<jon_avila> 2 or 3
<Ben_Tillyer> 2 or 3, followed by 1
<GreggVan> @rachael - agree changing to just 2
<kirkwood> 0
<GreggVan> +1 to cyborg
<dan_bjorge> 4 (for the purposes of comparing multiple conformance options, instead show two versions of a single case, not 2 separate cases) > 1 > 2
<Chuck> 1 has the majority, there is support for 2 next
Question about the conformance modal or the reasons for the choices? or Examples only illustrating the conformance modals? Suggesting not to put the draft
<Chuck> No objection to 2
<bruce_bailey> no objection to 2
<jeanne> I object. Too much work
<Cyborg> do any of the +1 to 4 object?
<Rachael> I also have concerns about the work
<Cyborg> -1
<JenStrickland> Agree, it's too much work. I'd like to see the two used first before we go to more.
<Chuck> If I'm not mistaken, I think that Cybele's ideas could fit in with 1, 2 or 3.
Rachel: Going for people supporting #2, would you object to two exemplars? If you object, would you be willing to join to write 3rd exemplar?
<GreggVan> Agree I to 1 if 2 swould slow it down
<GreggVan> but I think 2 should be doable and would help
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Use Clear Language and Error Prevention as examplars, and add in a more common exemplar if there is time and people to work on it
<GreggVan> +1
<alastairc> +1
+1
<ShawnT> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<jeanne> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<Detlev> 0
<Cyborg> my concern is that if there is never a specific targeted public question about the conformance model, how do we know it went through public review?
<Chuck> +1, would like to include Cybele's thoughts
Rachel: we will come back to the question of publishing, the goal is to create something to take it forward
<Cyborg> i'm not sure that's clear in the current incarnation.
Rachel: the whole target is to put the draft for conformance modal
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Use Clear Language and Error Prevention as examplars, and add in a more common exemplar if there is time and people to work on it. We will revisit how best to get the targeted public review on conformance including equity.
<Cyborg> spell out in detail - with a clear heading and a clear call.
Chuck: we can do 1 or 2 and include that for public review, i think it can be combined with 1 or 2
<Chuck> no objections, we will come back to this
RESOLUTION: Use Clear Language and Error Prevention as examplars, and add in a more common exemplar if there is time and people to work on it. We will revisit how best to get the targeted public review on conformance including equity.
Detlev: The impression will be 'it's going rear direction, substantial recommendation. I'm happy that there will be placeholder guidelin
Alastairc: Going through the list
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq1
... most people agreed with that
... reading the comment on caption comment from Michael
Gower
Rachel: Any comments or concerns with this?
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept changes to #2704
Alastairc: Reading # 2 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq2
<alastairc> The target offset from A to B may differ from the target offset from B to A, for example, if the sizes or shapes of these targets differ.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to note, but also different for one of differ
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept #2972 as amended above
<mbgower> +1
<ShawnT> +1
+1
<Laura> +1
<Detlev> +1
<alastairc> The target offset from A to B may differ from the target offset from B to A, for example, if the sizes or shapes of these targets are different.
<dan_bjorge> +1 (to the version alastairc posted in chat)
<GreggVan> +1
<Detlev> fine
<Wilco> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept #2972 as amended above
<JenStrickland> +1
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept changes to #2704
<bruce_bailey> are we giving editorial license on the differs or drop out one of the differs?
<bruce_bailey> +1
<mbgower> +1
<alastairc> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept changes to #2704
alastairc: reading # 3 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2973
... there are few comments on this #3
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhh9VgBC_6HD2emkvql2Hn83iSChwlhGBs5_E9gkdEM/edit https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/71bYG9ZG/image.png
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhh9VgBC_6HD2emkvql2Hn83iSChwlhGBs5_E9gkdEM/edit
alastairc: looking through all
the different variation from this document
... about testability, especially for small targets
<dan_bjorge> it would be good to see why we take this as a problem in the response
alastairc: it is mainly on testability, on small targets, knowing which side and direction of the targets are pointing
<Chuck> Poornima: This solution talked about making the targets bigger. ...is being used in any parts of the web page, like headers and footers.
<Chuck> Poornima: We are talking about making targets bigger...
<Chuck> Alastair: This is an exception. If the target is 24 x 24 you don't need the exception.
<Chuck> Poornima: If it's not 24 x 24, then it would cover the exception, and it doesn't need to meet 24 x 24?
<Chuck> Alastair: We are not making exception for stack links. The comment is about stacked links being more common and not about overlapping.
<Chuck> Poornima: That makes sense. Stacked links are made as an exception, but it's not.
<Chuck> Alastair: Correct, it's not a common case.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask "target clearance" (in Google doc) is duplicative of which other case ?
<scribe> scribe: Poornima
alastairc: 3 or 4 different
situations, but the last issue is Jaws-test.. let's pretend the
buttons, sometimes diagonally overlapping.. confused by
measuring diagonal, both overlap language and target
offset
... question is on what overlapping means?
<kirkwood> agreed, overlap implies a z coordinate (often used in design)
alastairc: its trying to solve one issue at a time, the suggestion is in there..
mbgower: overlapping can be part of the response, lot of different things coming on to this one issue
<bruce_bailey> +1 that this issue relates to https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3050
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Alastair to update and send to email list for final review. If no objections, approve closing issue.
alastairc: update based on the suggestions and send around. if we get no objection, then take it forward
<Wilco> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1 to closing
<mbgower> +1
<kirkwood> +1
Rachel: I would love to approve draft resolution if no objections
+1
<Rachael> +1
<GreggVan> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Detlev> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<ShawnT> +1
RESOLUTION: Alastair to update and send to email list for final review. If no objections, approve closing issue #2973
alastairc: reading # 4 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2974
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think it really helps to think of these 'at scale'
mbgower: from last meeting, we really like huge diagrams.. if we actually look at these, CSS pixel scale, it becomes not effective. the circle and triangle are pretty close, and it looks small with 24 px
<bruce_bailey> +1 that looking at images at 1:1 scale illustrates non-problem of "weird" results
<Detlev> ok, run with it :)
alastairc: re. Detlev comments, yeah it has to be like this given the examples
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept #2974
<ShawnT> +1
+1
<GreggVan> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Chuck> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Rachael> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Detlev> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept #2974
<bruce_bailey> +1
<dan_bjorge> -1 (I agree with his comments), but will accept group's consensus
alastairc: reading # 5 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3031
... the examples shows different images of what 24x24 is
Wilco: I
<dan_bjorge> +1 agree with Wilco that rotation makes testing much harder for no practical benefit - skewed buttons that small are very rare in practice
Wilco: I'm kind of surprised
about the rotating way of the images, 24 px on X and Y axis,
how do we test this manually?
... this becomes difficult from testing point
alastairc: useful to write test cases, may be remove the examples, and restructure differently to write
<jon_avila> Seems reasonable
<Detlev> good change, Mike
mbgower: my comment is mainly on how it does not extend outside the target area
alastairc: If we change the exception on overlapping for 24 x 24, it could be a problem potentially
bruce_bailey: for circular figure, I agree the 24x24 can be not easy to measure
<bruce_bailey> +1 for the diagrams, no fear to use them
<jon_avila> The square rather than circle is easier for some of us to understand and measure.
<Detlev> solid seems a worthy addition
mbgower: one way of doing this is to satisfy solid 24x24
<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept #2803 with skewed example removed and as amended. Wilco's issue will be addressed later.
<jon_avila> Happy to remove skew
<ShawnT> +1
<Wilco> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
+1
<mbgower> +1
<dan_bjorge> +0.5 - would prefer to additionally have an example with nested targets, but okay as-is
<bruce_bailey> maybe have pair of circles ?
RESOLUTION: Accept #2803 with skewed example removed and as amended. Wilco's issue will be addressed later.
<mbgower> +1
alastairc: reading #6 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2524
... any comments?
<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept #2524
<mbgower> +1
alastairc: if no comments, then we can close this issue
<Detlev> +1
<alastairc> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ToddL> +1
<jon_avila> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept #2524
alastairc: the survey will stay
open, basically 7 to 20 for next week
... most of them are going to be easier
... in the last few minutes, reading through this target
overlapping
<kirkwood> the term ‘overlap’ is confusing
wilco: I think the exception would be better without the word 'overlapping'
mbgower: I have a feeling that we
are trying to point out 'a target inside another target'
... the edge case is the target is very close instead of
overlapping
Wilco: even the target inside
another target, that still needs to be 24 x 24
... it's not required to be a square, it can be a circle, for
example
mbgower: yeah, something like that
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we clarify that "overlap" is not Z axis ? Are we strictly 2D ? Do we use "inside" to describe ?
<dan_bjorge> If we say we're okay with the exception allowing a 24px circle in non-overlapped cases *and also* in overlapped cases, why are we not just allowing that in the main clause for simplicity?
<mbgower> Spacing: The target has a target offset...
bruce_bailey: I'm not a fan of taking overlap away, we came to this after lot of exploratory.. what we are talking about is the visual results of 2-dimensional
alastairc: it means the exception does not apply to G1 through G4?
<bruce_bailey> overlapping versus overlapped -- need to think on that one
mbgower: in H4, there were two rectangles, that's where my comment is to add 24x24 solid, because the rectange itself will not pass
<bruce_bailey> agree that example H4 outer rectangle should not be a pass
<Rachael> Will continue this on Friday
<dan_bjorge> The actual problem edge case is more like the back rectangle in J3, I think - because those 2 shapes are neither horizontally nor vertically aligned, without the non-overlapping language, you measure that from the bottom-right of the back rectangle to the bottom-left of the top rectangle and it passes
<mbgower> Thanks!
<ShawnT> Bye
Rachel: Thank you scribers today, and join Friday's meeting to continue this wcag 2.2 discussion
<alastairc> https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/full/abZxPow
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/Gregg - I suggest we catch up about this on Wednesday// Succeeded: s/not a fan of taking overlap/not a fan of taking overlap away/ Default Present: Chuck, JenStrickland, ToddL, jeanne, alastairc, bruce_bailey, GreggVan, joweismantel, tzviya, Laura_Carlson, ShawnT, Francis_Storr, J_Mullen, Ben_Tillyer, JustineP, Cyborg, mbgower, sarahhorton, Wilco, ChrisLoiselle, Detlev, Raf, Poornima, maryjom, Azlan, shadi, wendyreid, jon_avila, kirkwood, Jaunita_George, dan_bjorge Present: Chuck, JenStrickland, ToddL, jeanne, alastairc, bruce_bailey, GreggVan, joweismantel, tzviya, Laura_Carlson, ShawnT, Francis_Storr, J_Mullen, Ben_Tillyer, JustineP, Cyborg, mbgower, sarahhorton, Wilco, ChrisLoiselle, Detlev, Raf, Poornima, maryjom, Azlan, shadi, wendyreid, jon_avila, kirkwood, Jaunita_George, dan_bjorge Regrets: Makoto Found Scribe: JenStrickland Inferring ScribeNick: JenStrickland Found Scribe: Poornima Inferring ScribeNick: Poornima Found Scribe: Poornima Inferring ScribeNick: Poornima Scribes: JenStrickland, Poornima ScribeNicks: JenStrickland, Poornima 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: 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]