- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@paciellogroup.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:56:55 -0500
- To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Formatted version of minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html
Text of Minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Silver Task Force Teleconference
12 Dec 2016
[2]Agenda
[2]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Meetings/FtF_Dec_2016
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-irc
Attendees
Present
Shawn_Lauriat, Sarah_Horton, Jeanne_Spellman,
Michael_Cooper
Regrets
Chair
Jeanne, Shawn
Scribe
jeanne, MichaelC, Lauriat
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]agenda discussion
2. [6]Roles of stakeholders
3. [7]I need guidelines for...
4. [8]Roles for Stakeholder Map, Part 2
5. [9]Follow-up from morning exercise
6. [10]Recruiting: how many people, what outreach
7. [11]Liaisons to other organizations
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<MichaelC> meeting: Silver FtF Day 1
<jeanne> Trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Silver Task Force Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 12 December 2016
<MichaelC> meeting: Silver FtF Day 1
agenda discussion
<jeanne> Edits to the agenda are on the wiki <-
[14]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Meetings/
FtF_Dec_2016#Agenda
[14]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Meetings/FtF_Dec_2016#Agenda
<jeanne> Sarah: I would like to have 2 hours to do a RACI
diagram: What Roles, Who is Accountable, Who do we need to
Consult, who do we need to keep Informed.
<jeanne> scribe: jeanne
Sarah: Overview, identify roles, then map people to roles.
... start with an Activity
... make provisional personas for that role. Who the person is,
why they need accessibility guidelines
... later on we will prioritize and group them
... created a stakeholder results form, with separate columns
for the roles.
SL: [reads list of stakeholders from the Design document. ]
<Lauriat>
[15]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Design_Pl
an_for_Silver#Stakeholder_Map
[15]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Design_Plan_for_Silver#Stakeholder_Map
Michael: One of the things that the WCAG WG brings is the
institutional memory. We need to be aware of the compromises
made in the past.
Jeanne: [reads the list of roles from the submission form]
Roles of stakeholders
Person with Disability
scribe: Sites are accessible
... find sites that are accessibile
... the standard exist
DIsability organization
scribe: inform the standards
... provides structure
... institutionailzed advocacy
Thought leader in accessibility
scribe: Where is the industry going?
... overlap with disability organization
... having the standard allows thought leader to build on the
standard
Influencer in disability
scribe: floor for disabilities to build
... identify new technology with new disability needs
... identify new disabilities not covered by standards
Accessibility Professional
scribe: the standard by which you know you are doing what is
needed
... may also be someone who works with people with disabilities
Accessibility Developer/Designer
scribe: point of reference for building software
Accessibility specialist
scribe: someone who works with people with disabilitities - day
to day helpers or training helpers
... point of reference for how things should work
... report problems to vendors of software and assistive
technology
... guidelines and sjupporting materials help them identify how
to help their clients
... learning materials
Researchers
scribe: guidelines can be a topic of study
... use it as a measure in their research
... gap analysis of the guidelines as a topic of research
... could help prioritize research
Instructors/Professors
scribe: teaching coding - same as accessibility professionals
... working with people with disabilities, working from the
other side
... point of reference
... curriculum basis
Accessibility advisor or consultant-type role
scribe: accessibility audit, gaps in process and development,
knows accessibility needs and solutions.
... knows the guidelines, communicating about how the guideline
applies to a specific situations
... gives perceived legitimacy and a framework for the
communication
QA Professional
scribe: manual testing, writing test plans
... automation side writes the tooling and validate the tooling
... goal is that the product conforms to the guidelines and
validating the product conforms
Designers
scribe: to design products that conform to guidelines
... understand constraints of guidelines
... must have creativity within the constraints of the
guidelines
... guidelines provide a boundary
... the boundary cannot be a so small that it becomes a
constraints.
... must have language in the guidelines that they can
understand
Developers
scribe: using the guidelines to know how to write the software
... a specification book (for Designers, more than developers)
... must solve the problems even the designers overlooked.
... developer executes the design
... validating designs they get
... validating that what they have made is correct
... source of solutions of problems -- what is an accessible
data picker?
AWK: I'm worried about haviing so many different stakeholer
groups. I think that we are making it less defined. I worry
that we will not be able to map person-to-role mapping. I see 3
different levels: person with disability, content developers,
intermediaries
Product Manager - the person who owns the product and has to
make it successful
scribe: more indirect: prioritization of whatever has to be
done in their product
... use the guidelines to understand the issues that their
product has to meet
... and understand the impact of their product lacks
... helps set and communicate expectations
Product Manager
Project Manager
scribe: help designers understand scope
... help developers prioritize
... scoping, timeframes of what peeople want to do.
Content providers, producers and editors
scribe: similar to designers
... need to know boundaries within they can work
... depends on the type of content creators
... informs a style guide
... creative solutions to accessibility needs
... awareness
I need guidelines for...
Researcher: For a thesis statement
Influencer: to be creditble
QA: Know what bugs to write
Developer: Avoid creating bugs
Instructor: have topics for my class
Disability organization: Advocate toward a stable standard
reference
Person with a disability: Use technology
Accessibility helper: understand how to do my job
Accessibility/designer developer: tell people what to do
Accessibility advisor consultant: tell people what to do.
Designer: know what to do
Product manager: Priorize adding new features
Content: make accessible content
Accessibility Influencers: be credible
Disability Influencers: identify gaps
Project manager: allocate time /wrangling
Roles for Stakeholder Map, Part 2
Policymaker (govt)
scribe: define the policies that others need to work against
... they need guidelines to set policy
... they need international guidelines for harmonization with
other countries
Policymaker (organization and corporations)
scribe: internal policies match exteral (when applicable) or to
meet customer needs and goals
... sometimes to demonstrate compliance
... risk limiting factor -- meeting the guidelines mitigate
risk, even if all customer needs aren't met.
Web browser and platform developer (extensions, ECHO platform,
hardware input output, native apps)
scribe: need standards to insure their platforms enable
software to meet the standards
... platform itself needs to meet guidelines
Assistive Technology developer
scribe: follow their side of the guidelines so the AT works
with conforming platforms and software
... capitalize on the guidelines -- build increased
functionality that is based on the guidelines
... meet the needs of the audience with the specific disability
they are addressing
Authoring Tool Developers
scribe: software needs to meet the guidelines so people with
disabilities can use it
... create application, content and interactivity that is
accessible
... the border between content creation and programming is
blurring. It will be a challenge to Silver
... help you author accessible content and reduce the way to
make inaccessible content
Evaluation Tool Developers
scribe: something to evaluate, test cases
... automatic and semi automatic tests, they need guidelines
that are implementable to them.
Lawyers
scribe: communicate definitively
... define the terms of case settlements
... demonstrate non-compliance
Accessibility Advocates
scribe: educating people on need for accessibility
... persuading and validating a position
Innovators (not necessarily accessibility related)
scribe: when innovations are deployed, the guidelines address
the requirements of those technologies
Industry Association
scribe: and Professional Associations
... certificationfor memebers - training and testing
Creating Training Materials
scribe: topics and explanation of concepts
CTO - IT Managers
scribe: prioritization
... compliance with standards
... establish accountability for compliance
Call Center
scribe: indirect. Need to know how it is implemented on the
products they are responsible for.
... similar to the accessibility specialist
Standards Organizations
scribe: coordination with their own standards
WCAG WG
scribe: so the web will be more accessible
... to address all the needs of everyone else. The guidelines
are the way the working uses to meet all those needs.
... standards that are reasonable with their jurisdictions
... harmonized with other juristictions
... useful and up to date (despite unpredictable timelines)
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
Follow-up from morning exercise
sh: let's make sense of the roles
what do they need
what are they looking for
what do we want from them
what are their commonalities
we want to prioritize them
sl: group
sh: I did abstractions for us to work with
sl: group first
will help with the following conceptualization
based on the needs for the staeholders
sh: so we have all the buckets
for group
e.g. if we´re interested in design decision types
we might look at AT devs, PMs, designers
<discussion of ways to group>
sl: some groups might be technical, others not
allows us to tailor surveys
sh: I use accessibility guidelines to make policy
* gov
* org policy
* disability orgs
sh: I use accessibility guidelines to use policy
* lawyers
* disability orgs
* a11y consultant
sh: is there difference between make and use policy?
sl: yes, though interactions similar
sh: make design decisions
js: (for content)
* eval tool
* authoring tool
js: make content
* project manager
* product manager
* developers
* designers
* QA
* content producers
* accessibility development / design
* IT managers
js: Standards orgs
* standards developers
* WCAG WG
<scribe decides the moving around of post-it notes has exceeded
the potential of linear scribing>
sl: policy sometimes grouped into sub-categories sometimes not
sh: is grouping not helpful?
sl: it is but not 1:1
sh: does it help us?
e.g., researchers might go in multiple buckets
sl: goal to come up with stakeholder gap with gaps identified
and plan to fill the gaps
sh: @@
sl: @@
sh: this grouping helps understand the roles
mc: grouping make fewer types of roles we need to treat
separately
sh: I want the provisional personas
put attributes on the roles so we can see the overlaps better
sl: what do we accomplish by grouping?
surveys and stakeholder interviews we´ll handle later
sh: what roles critical to meet the goal of supporting PWD?
sl: depends on which specific exercise we´re doing
right now priority to identify gaps
js: let´s look at how many people we have in the categories
sl: easier for the ones we had in the survey
note accessibility professionals is a big bucket
greater flexibility is a big priority
let´s look at roles that seem sparsely populated
WGAG WG participants, standards orgs
though WG easier to reach out to
we have lots of people from a11y orgs
though there may gaps in types we´ll want to fill in
24 marked as policy makers
sh: ask people to self-categorize?
mc: we don´t want to make too much noise with these people
sl: we probably need more in the lawyers category
12 web browser developer
73 web content developers
9 AT developers
think we need emphasis on diversity within this category as
well
e.g., no screen reader developer
mc: that´s been a difficult group for us to reach
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to cast about for screen reader
developer names [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Cast about for screen reader
developer names [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2016-12-19].
sl: from some of the sparse categories, we could ask the people
already in them for recommendations of others
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to ask Lainey for other lawyer names
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Ask lainey for other lawyer
names [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2016-12-19].
sl: many of these are ¨know accessbility¨ types
need to also explicitly try to reach ¨don´t know accessibility¨
types
js: AWK suggested alistapart outreach
<scribe> ACTION: andrew to do outreach to alistapart for
non-a11y people [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03]
[18] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Do outreach to alistapart for
non-a11y people [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2016-12-19].
mc: let´s be very deliberate on that type of public outreach
sl: content orgs, want to get lots of very different types of
content
js: @@
sl: games, lots of authoring tool overlap
google docs
audio interfaces
<scribe> ACTION: jeanne to contact ian hamilton for game
developer frameworks [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04]
[19] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Contact ian hamilton for game
developer frameworks [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2016-12-19].
sl: need to brainstorm a list of content types we want to
capture
likewise on platforms, want diverse set of platforms
don´t think we have mobile, VR right now
mc: want to get vehicles, web of things
js: Mike Elledge for former, Dave Raggett for latter
Alan Bird may have connections as well
mc: +1 to broad brainstorm here
sl: also diversity in general within the groups
international, types of org, etc.
sh: what is platform?
better word
js: hardware, os, extension
sl: everything between content and person except AT
js: and maybe even that
sl: sometimes
mc: is this a sufficient grouping axis?
sl: good for now
just want to make sure we haven´t missed a group
e.g., content creators we didn´t reach out for
js: at least outside a11y community
sl: which filtered our resuts
sh: <summarizes the groups>
sl: we need to expand people with disabilities
<SarahHorton> Thank you :)
mc: for disability categorization
<SarahHorton> Here's a start on the roles and activites
inventory:
[20]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XK_evYulIaLsYOlMjuD
OC763xWL2TOM9SvPjRX_d9ag/edit?usp=sharing
[20]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XK_evYulIaLsYOlMjuDOC763xWL2TOM9SvPjRX_d9ag/edit?usp=sharing
blind and visually impaired
deaf and hearing impaired
mobility impaired
cognitive impaired
learning disabilities
and multiple disabilities which is often overlooked
sl: deaf-blind
<jeanne> JS: disabled veterans organizations
sh: let´s fill in roles and activities
<fiddling on the columns in the spreadsheet>
<and filling in the cells, not scribed>
<unofficial break>
sl: some roles we won´t need to go into as much depth as others
sh: today
sl: forseeable future
sh: what will future look like if future succeeds?
js: significant step towards unicorns and rainbows
easier for people to get information on making their products
and services accessible
sl: everybody can do what they´re trying to do more easily
mc: people can get the info they need sooner to address a11y
js: broaden what standards apply to
mc: we´d all love a11y to come automatically without thought
but Silver won´t make that happen
we hope it takes us a step closer
but don´t bite off an over-large scope
sl: we want to make it easier for people to adapt to technology
change
and keep a11y
right now we´re being aspirational
but later we will need to narrow things down
mc: WCAG 2 tried to be be-all and end-all
for stability of policy
led to heistance to change, even create supplementary guidance
for silver we want to be able to react to technology change
more quickly
while remaining viewed as a useful and solid base for policy
harmonization
sl: @@
... think for stakeholder map we´ve gotten what we need out of
today´s discussion
have a starting point for goals, discussions
for recruiting do we want to prioritize some of these roles for
TF participation?
mc: yes
sh: how about that stack ranking thing?
sl: not out of context of specific activities
in specific tasks it will make sense to focus more on different
groups
we might do prioritization and group of surveys
sh: are there roles that our work would fail if we don´t have
people from that role?
sl: some roles as needing to be involved in the full process
rather than as needed?
sh: yes
mc: pwd critical
policy people important for our history
js: tool developers
sl: can sort by responsibility, accountability, consult, inform
<Lauriat> Scribe: Lauriat
Recruiting: how many people, what outreach
Jeanne: Particularly looking at how many people, what
specialties, that sort of thing.
Michael: We should talk about the size of the TF.
... a lot of people feel the time expectation is high, which it
is, so I want to reconfirm with you the size of the TF and
other ways people can participate.
... How restrictive to want to be?
... Then talk about how do we want to go about with active
recruiting.
Jeanne: We want a larger circle. Research partners, people who
contribute heavily, but aren't necessarily part of the TF.
Sarah: Does it make sense to talk about the structure of the
activity? It seems a bit up in the air.
Michael: Part of why I wanted to talk about that after
tomorrow's WG Call, as the charter will influence things.
... Maybe talk about how the group would account for things if
the decision goes in either direction?
Jeanne: I prefer to stay with WCAG, but the advantage of the CG
is other people (researchers, etc.) would have different rules
around IP, but we could also have a TF and a CG for
researchers.
... We have a plan for how to move forward and get started, but
the danger is CGs tend to have a high rate of failure without
support TF have.
Sarah: I don't really know a lot about the internal workings of
the W3C. To pick up another point we had started before the
break, I think we have some goals in the guidelines being more
effective in producing accessible outcomes.
... We do have goals that mean that we will do this
effectively. It helps a lot to have an autonomous group that's
working on the project, because you're less likely to get
sidetracked or bogged down by legacy stuff, and can focus on
the attributes of the project you need to.
Michael: I agree with that, but I'll argue for having a degree
of contact with the WG helps, with validity of the work itself.
... A strong ongoing connection. We need a group that can move
fast and do the work, but also have the WG bringing that memory
and experience to inform the work.
Sarah: Not advocating for one thing or another, since I don't
know how these things work.
Jeanne: For the next nine months, we won't have a lot of
standards work going on, and we'll really need people who know
research.
... While we do the research, it'll attract more interest from
people who know the standards work.
Michael: To a certain extent, we can't control who joins the
TF, but we can set expectations and manage things in a way that
accounts for that. I want someone in the core group who can
provide a bit of a slowdown in terms of perspective and
catching things early so that we don't end up with something
unusable for one case for whatever reason.
Sarah: Someone has said he'd help with research, and managing
it.
Michael: We probably would want to work with the Research TF in
order to form requests correctly to the outside world for
research, and then they could do that on their own. They'd have
their own timelines and quality requirements that may not match
our own, though.
... That can be coordinated by the Research TF or by the CG.
Sarah: If someone volunteered to help us with the diary
studies, the self-reporting projects. Helping design the
studies and evaluate the findings from it. That might end up
being a document articulating the things we need to know.
Michael: W3C probably couldn't publish the document, for
reasons of copyright, but they could publish it and then we
could reference, but CG could publish it and then it'd have W3C
copyright.
Sarah: To review, we sent out a request for research partners.
... People from that will expect a response from us after this
week for how we can move forward with that.
Michael: The group will need to publish the list of research
requests, and the group will need to publish a timeline of
these things.
Jeanne: We've published the timeline, which does need refining.
Michael: We have a core set of people, hopefully under W3C
process. Talking about needing to interface with certain
external groups, including managing the results and these
interfaces.
... When things happen outside of W3C process, we'll need to
come up with ways to work with them that don't introduce
complications, like IP-related publishing issues.
Sarah: If this person joined the TF, we'd need to get Andrew
and Josh invite this person to join the WG?
Michael: Yes.
Sarah: If I, as an outside person, want to contribute for two
years but not join the WG, how would that work?
Michael: They'd need to communicate things via the public open
channels.
Sarah: Back to the question of recruiting, we want to focus on
people committed to the WG over time and not someone looking to
sign up for this one project.
... In the CG path, it's a more fluid engagement, and can come
and go depending on the work at hand. Do we need to figure out
recruiting for each scenario (TF vs. CG)?
Michael: Yes.
Jeanne: Once we product a requirements document, we need to
figure out what to do with that. If in the WG, it wouldn't be a
major battle to get the work chartered to move forward.
... If a CG, we'll need to find a place to put the work. That
may mean rechartering the WG, or creating a new one, which
would create conflicts.
Michael: A major risk: Silver is developed to be great by the
people working on it, and the WG doesn't take it seriously.
... it could work as a CG, but it's a risk.
... A CG is technically independent. I would technically be
prohibited from working with the CG.
Jeanne: Web Platform has a CG, as one exception to that.
Michael: Let's move forward with the assumption that the TF
will happen. What do we want for that?
... Issues with the 8-hour per week time commitment, other ways
to direct people to other channels?
Sarah: One way to look at this is to look at the work of the
TF, talk about the roles needed on the TF to execute it.
... It may be the case that people come and go from the TF,
depending on the work.
... Maybe someone just comes in for the duration of the
activity and then backs up again once we move to another phase.
Jeanne: I was looking at it from the point of what does it take
to work with the W3C. A group less than six isn't really
viable.
... I think we should try for eight. Manageable, nimble, and
small, but could have the flexibility of something small.
... What kind of persona do we need for the group? We have too
many people from TPG on the group, and that will cause
problems. We have someone from another place reaching out to
join, which is great.
... We have some people (including some research-focused)
interested, but very put off by the 8-hour requirement.
Michael: Thinking in terms of diversity of the TF.
... Including having at least two disability groups
represented.
... We may want to think in terms of concentric circles, where
the core puts in 8 hours, and then the next circle out puts in
a bit less.
Sarah: In the past when you've had a successful project, can
you describe the personas of the core people involved?
Michael: I think we need people who are organized, keep up on
action items, plot their work effort into the future,
technically skilled, able to express their opinion and accept
other people's opinions.
Sarah: These are attributes of a person, which is good. Any
other experience, role-based types, maybe people involved in
policy for example?
Michael: Well, people with disabilities are a must.
Sarah: PhD?
Jeanne: Certainly not on the TF.
Sarah: Jeanne, you mentioned where people work. (Oh!
International.) How important are you seeing that?
Michael: A little more fluid. If half the TF comes from one
company, that'll raise questions.
Sarah: I like the idea of concentric circles, bringing certain
people into the core for periods of time.
... Should we reach out to specific individuals?
Michael: Thinking of specifically two levels of collaboration,
the core group and an outer group.
... We'll update the work statement to say that the core group
will put in an expected 8 hours per week and then have other
contributors, but we don't need to explicitly say that they
aren't in a core circle.
Sarah: We got a lot of people in the stakeholder responses who
want to take part in Silver.
Michael: Do we want to just set up a CG now in order to get
more participation and interest?
Sarah: I like that idea, because we really need to get people
involved and bring them along. It allows us to do some of these
activities that seem confining within the context of the WG
(like the research) that we could do in the CG.
... Having a group around that activity gives it a bit more
formality and credibility.
Michael: We can set up a mailing list, a wiki, things like
that.
Andrew: Thinking about the community group aspect, I feel like
it's going to be hard to characterize our current state without
people pointing out that that's what incubation is.
... We know that there's tight connection that we'll need to
have between Silver and the WG.
Michael: Maybe plan A will be that we don't talk about the
supplementary CG idea yet, and just go ahead with the proposal
for the TF.
Jeanne: We won't be successful unless we continue with the WG.
Sarah: Yeah.
Michael: We can be thinking it might happen, but don't have to
propose it just yet.
<scribe> ACTION: Michael Update work statement to reflect
updated work expectations. [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05]
[21] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Update work statement to reflect
updated work expectations. [on Michael Cooper - due
2016-12-19].
Sarah: If you want names of people, let me know. Not-your-usual
suspects kind of people.
Michael: With this, knowledge of W3C is kind of important.
Liaisons to other organizations
Michael: I want to cover strategy for liaising with these
organizations, and what organizations we want to liaise with.
... We want to avoid misunderstandings about expectations and
such.
Sarah: Liaising with other standards organizations to let them
know about what we're doing?
Michael: At least that.
... We want to really not be prohibited from doing this work,
but still remain sensitive to their needs.
trackbot, make meeting
<trackbot> Sorry, Lauriat, I don't understand 'trackbot, make
meeting'. Please refer to
<[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc
trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: andrew to do outreach to alistapart for non-a11y
people [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to ask Lainey for other lawyer names
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to cast about for screen reader developer
names [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: jeanne to contact ian hamilton for game developer
frameworks [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Michael Update work statement to reflect updated
work expectations. [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05]
[23] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03
[24] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02
[25] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01
[26] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04
[27] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 21:57:27 UTC