W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Minutes of Silver TF F2F Day 1 - 12 December 2016

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:59:35 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <78be337a-5209-80bf-9862-ac7b0f64f910@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted version of minutes:

Text of Minutes:

        [1] http://www.w3.org/

                      Silver Task Force Teleconference

12 Dec 2016



     See also: [3]IRC log

        [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-irc


            Shawn_Lauriat, Sarah_Horton, Jeanne_Spellman,

            Jeanne, Shawn

            jeanne, MichaelC, Lauriat


       * [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 <-


     <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. ]



     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

     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
     ... 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
     ... guidelines and sjupporting materials help them identify how
     to help their clients
     ... learning materials


     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


     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

     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


     scribe: to design products that conform to guidelines
     ... understand constraints of guidelines
     ... must have creativity within the constraints of the
     ... guidelines provide a boundary
     ... the boundary cannot be a so small that it becomes a
     ... must have language in the guidelines that they can


     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,

     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

     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
     ... 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.


     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

     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

     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]

     <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]

     <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¨

     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]

     <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

     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]

     <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

     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


     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

     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

     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

     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

     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
     ... 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
     ...  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

     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

     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
     ... 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

     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
     ...  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
     ...  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

     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]

     <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Update work statement to reflect
     updated work expectations. [on Michael Cooper - due

     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

     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
     [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to ask Lainey for other lawyer names
     [recorded in
     [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to cast about for screen reader developer
     names [recorded in
     [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to contact ian hamilton for game developer
     frameworks [recorded in
     [NEW] ACTION: Michael Update work statement to reflect updated
     work expectations. [recorded in

       [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 22:00:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC