1 16:06:46 <API> #startmeeting
   2 16:06:46 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Sep  6 16:06:46 2012 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 16:06:46 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:07:13 <API> #topic Choosing the project(s) to be proposed for use of the FoG funds.
   5 16:07:32 <API> #info as we were saying during the last two meetings, FoG for accessibility has ended
   6 16:07:44 <API> #info and it is the moment to think on how to use that money
   7 16:07:56 <API> #info original list of proposals here:
   8 16:08:00 <API> #info https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Marketing/FoG
   9 16:08:34 <API> #info we concluded to look on this during this week, but we couldn't
  10 16:08:57 <API> #info we should try to give a specific deadline to have a proposal, I say something like 2 weeks
  11 16:08:58 <API> done
  12 16:09:03 <API> questions, doubts, comments?
  13 16:09:14 <clown> API, can you clarify your last info?
  14 16:09:26 <clown> "we concluded to look on this during this week, but we couldn't"
  15 16:09:39 <API> clown, I mean that on last meeting we also talked about htat
  16 16:09:54 <joanie> we've been talking about it for a while now
  17 16:09:56 <API> and afair, the conclusion was working during that week in order to have something "baked"
  18 16:10:07 <API> and that was not the case
  19 16:10:20 <API> we are basically in the same state that two weeks ago
  20 16:10:29 <API> "fog finished, need to decide how to use the money"
  21 16:10:45 <clown> right. but are you saying we are not going to discuss this today?
  22 16:10:47 <API> that info tried to say that we are stalled with respect to this
  23 16:11:01 <clown> and we are currently stalled?
  24 16:11:12 * joanie tries
  25 16:11:20 <joanie> 1. We need a decision/consensus
  26 16:11:28 <joanie> 2. We shall discuss it at this meeting and the next
  27 16:11:44 <joanie> 3. By the end of the next meeting we should have an answer
  28 16:11:45 <jjmarin> What's the idea: to split the amount for "bounties" for different works or trying to pay more properly a work ?
  29 16:11:49 <joanie> The Board is waiting
  30 16:11:58 <joanie> jjmarin: we need to decide that
  31 16:12:07 <jjmarin> ok
  32 16:12:12 <joanie> but the Board feels that Bounties are not the way to go
  33 16:12:22 <joanie> The situation is this:
  34 16:12:30 <joanie> We came up with a list of stuff
  35 16:12:36 <joanie> people gave us money based on that
  36 16:12:39 <joanie> we cannot do it all
  37 16:12:50 <joanie> some members of the Board do not like the Bugfixing idea
  38 16:12:51 <clown> good point re:  "people gave us money based on that
  39 16:12:59 <joanie> of the remaining items, let's prioritize
  40 16:13:11 <joanie> can we come up with 3 must haves to start a proper discussion?
  41 16:13:25 <joanie> I for one think the fact that we STILL do not have accessible PDFs is shameful
  42 16:13:36 <joanie> so I'd like to toss in that one as a must-have-to-debate
  43 16:13:38 <joanie> what else?
  44 16:14:00 <jjmarin> the other thing is that many of the items from the list are wip
  45 16:14:08 <API> fwiw, I also don't like too much that bugfixing idea
  46 16:14:27 <joanie> it's not shiny, but the reality is that we have a lot of a11y breakage
  47 16:14:29 <joanie> nautilus
  48 16:14:31 <joanie> evolution
  49 16:14:40 <joanie> some gtk+
  50 16:14:44 <API> I see that more for students that want to join and start with something
  51 16:15:12 <API> jjmarin, what do you mean for "many of the items are wip"?
  52 16:15:21 <jjmarin> work in progress
  53 16:15:25 <mgorse> Is the board opposed to picking a project and paying someone a certain amount to do the work? Do they have alternaties that they'[ve proposed?
  54 16:15:44 <joanie> mgorse: they have not proposed alternatives
  55 16:15:49 <joanie> they do expect us to propose something
  56 16:15:57 <API> jjmarin, ah ok, Im too used to see that as WIP
  57 16:15:59 <API> anyway
  58 16:16:05 <joanie> and a member of the Board (who is not me because I would have to recuse myself) will talk to us
  59 16:16:10 <API> in general all the stuff on accessibility are WIP
  60 16:16:27 <API> but always postponed by the people due dayjob
  61 16:16:32 <API> that was the reason of FoG
  62 16:16:38 <API> well one of the reasons
  63 16:16:49 <API> that people could focus
  64 16:16:51 <API> focus-focus
  65 16:16:58 <API> on the stuff, instead of using random time
  66 16:17:00 <mgorse> yeah, it's not clear to me what the ythink we should propose. Knowing what their concerns are might help
  67 16:17:22 <joanie> they don't have concerns as much as they want a proposal
  68 16:17:27 <joanie> they do not like "bug fixing"
  69 16:17:31 <clown> well, the focus tracking was proposed since it was work not covered by our grants.
  70 16:17:52 <joanie> clown: would you like to include that as a must-have-to-debate?
  71 16:18:07 <mgorse> So they'd kind of want a completely new feature, rather than a fix to something that's already there, or at least that's the way they see it
  72 16:18:17 <joanie> mgorse: not sure that's it
  73 16:18:33 <clown> joanie:  I feel a little conflict of interest.  The IDRC would love to have outside money pay for my time or part of my time.
  74 16:18:49 <joanie> clown: you can recuse yourself from final vote
  75 16:18:54 <joanie> I'm in that boat on the board
  76 16:19:03 <joanie> as long as we know the conflict of interest it is ok
  77 16:19:04 <clown> but not from proposing it as a "must have".
  78 16:19:04 <clown> ?
  79 16:19:19 <joanie> ??
  80 16:19:31 <clown> in which case, I will propose it as a "must have" while noting that i'm biased...
  81 16:19:37 <joanie> gotcha
  82 16:19:39 <joanie> so noted
  83 16:19:46 <joanie> so we have two items
  84 16:19:50 <joanie> do we have a third?
  85 16:20:14 <API> joanie, two items == evince + focus tracking?
  86 16:20:21 <joanie> yup
  87 16:20:29 <clown> I guess I would note that Peter would likely also promote it as "must have".  Does he count?
  88 16:21:05 <joanie> Peter is not here
  89 16:21:08 <joanie> he can come next week
  90 16:21:15 <joanie> we'll continue the discussion then
  91 16:21:22 <clown> I'll let him know.
  92 16:21:27 <clown> :-)
  93 16:21:40 <joanie> so there's one other thing I'll toss out there in keeping with a theme
  94 16:21:51 <joanie> but a bit of background/history for context
  95 16:22:27 <joanie> a few board meetings ago, Bastien tossed out there the fact that a possible project would be to ensure that Gecko/Firefox worked well in this new a11y-aways-on world
  96 16:23:02 <joanie> personally, given the lack of commitment we are seeing from Mozilla w.r.t. *nix a11y, I could give a rat's arse about that
  97 16:23:11 <jjmarin> I think Evince work  small money
  98 16:23:14 <joanie> but it's a) a possibility and b) a preface to what I'm about to say next
  99 16:23:19 <joanie> hold on jjmarin
 100 16:23:27 <mgorse> It's also tied in with their porting to gtk 3, whenever they decide to do that
 101 16:23:42 <joanie> Bastien's mentioning Gecko got me to thinking
 102 16:23:54 <API> jjmarin, what do you mean?
 103 16:23:55 <mgorse> and I think that they could invest resources into it if they decided that it was important (which they might since I guess it affects everyone)
 104 16:23:58 <joanie> if the idea is that we don't have to limit things to "strictly in gnome"
 105 16:24:07 <API> that fog it is not enough money for the evince thing?
 106 16:24:09 <joanie> mgorse: exactly re invest their own resources
 107 16:24:17 * joanie waits for everyone else
 108 16:24:22 * clown wants people to talk at once.
 109 16:24:41 <jjmarin> sorry, I press enter by accidente. My point is that the Evince work was paid by Guadalinfo project, I think that it is a small project
 110 16:24:42 * clown meaning, I'm not following the above.
 111 16:24:59 <joanie> clown: I'm waiting
 112 16:25:09 <clown> who has the floor?
 113 16:25:19 <joanie> I'd like it
 114 16:25:23 <API> jjmarin, sorry but I don't think so
 115 16:25:29 <API> Guadalinfo project started the work
 116 16:25:34 <API> but there are still a lot to do
 117 16:25:42 <API> what danigm was trying to do these days
 118 16:25:51 <API> was getting the a11y support that had at the guadalinfo project times
 119 16:26:02 <API> but althouth that was better than nothing
 120 16:26:15 <API> was not enough to evince be considered accessible
 121 16:26:56 <joanie> moreover danigm did it wrong
 122 16:27:00 <joanie> he did not research orca
 123 16:27:06 <joanie> he took a random guess
 124 16:27:14 <joanie> figured Orca provided all access by flat review
 125 16:27:26 <joanie> demonstrated to me in Sevilla his totally inadequate solution
 126 16:27:41 <joanie> and we had a long chat about what really needed to be done
 127 16:27:49 <joanie> and that work continues to not be done
 128 16:27:50 <API> joanie, that was I meant with "there are still work to do"
 129 16:27:58 <API> what danigm did can be reused
 130 16:28:02 <API> atk implementation and so on
 131 16:28:11 <API> but there are still work to do in order to be usable with orca
 132 16:28:13 <joanie> API I know. What I am saying is that much of the original work was a waste of time
 133 16:28:21 <API> that also happened to me with gnome-shell
 134 16:28:33 <API> having several atk interfaces implemented on clutter was not enough
 135 16:28:46 <API> I was also too optimistic at that phase
 136 16:28:46 <joanie> and that in the future should a Guadalinfo style project come up, it would behoove them to actually talk to the a11y people rather than make uninformed guesses
 137 16:29:04 <joanie> the problem when a project gets awarded to the lowest bidder is that you get what you pay for
 138 16:29:32 <joanie> jjmarin: any other questions about whether or not Evince is a non-trivial project which must actually get done?
 139 16:30:13 <jjmarin> thanks for the clarification.
 140 16:30:25 <joanie> mgorse: you had fewer questions then clown
 141 16:30:26 <jjmarin> Now I think is more money :-)
 142 16:30:35 <joanie> so mgorse what questions do you have?
 143 16:31:31 <mgorse> I'm still confused about what the board actually wants or doesn't want, but maybe that can be worked out later. "Give us a proposal--something other than what you think should be done" doesn't sound very constructive, thouh, if that's what they're saying
 144 16:31:43 <joanie> mgorse: ok
 145 16:31:56 <joanie> they are saying "give us a proposal"
 146 16:32:07 <joanie> they are saying "we don't like 'bugfixing'"
 147 16:32:19 <joanie> other than that, they're not saying much. They want a proposal
 148 16:32:33 <joanie> and we cannot move forward in discussions or use the money until we have a proposal
 149 16:32:39 <joanie> make sense?
 150 16:32:42 <API> mgorse, they are just letting us "the experts" to decide what is the best way to use the money
 151 16:32:50 <mgorse> And that seems like a grey area. If Evince a11y doesn't work well, is that a "bug?" Anyway, maybe we should just propose something and wait for feedback
 152 16:33:06 <joanie> mgorse: I don't think it's a bug
 153 16:33:15 <joanie> it's a ahem "feature"
 154 16:33:29 <clown> a feature in need of an implemenation?
 155 16:33:34 <joanie> :)
 156 16:33:38 <joanie> yeah
 157 16:33:42 <clown> "implementation"
 158 16:33:45 <clown> oka
 159 16:33:46 <clown> okay
 160 16:33:47 <mgorse> Maybe what they mean is that they're opposed to having someone go and hunt for a bunch of minor bugs in different places to fix
 161 16:33:53 <joanie> mgorse: correct
 162 16:34:11 <joanie> mind you, hunting is not called for. We know what is broken (e.g. evolution, naultilus)
 163 16:34:20 <API> mgorse, about bugfixing they mentioned this kind of "a bunch of small/trivial bugfixes"
 164 16:34:30 <API> this is the same reason I said that I agree
 165 16:34:36 <mgorse> ok
 166 16:34:46 <joanie> clown: so what other questions did you have?
 167 16:34:46 <API> I see that bugfixing as something someone that want to start could do
 168 16:34:54 <API> ie: Googlle summer of code
 169 16:35:02 <API> or any gnome internship etc
 170 16:35:21 <clown> joanie:  none really.  I was waiting with baited breath what you were going to say next about Gecko/a11y always on.
 171 16:35:28 <clown> but couldn't follow the thread.
 172 16:35:28 <joanie> okay
 173 16:35:37 <joanie> yeah, that's why I stopped
 174 16:35:42 <joanie> I'm taking the floor now
 175 16:35:49 <joanie> I'll yield it shortly (I hope)
 176 16:35:57 <joanie> so back to what I was attempting to say
 177 16:36:18 <joanie> Bastien introduced the notion that we are not limited necessarily to "only fixing/implementing gnome stuff"
 178 16:37:01 <joanie> in recent discussions (past couple of days) on desktop-devel-list people have knocked abiword and said that the official office solution for gnome is libreoffice
 179 16:37:11 <joanie> official == officially recommended
 180 16:37:30 <joanie> there are a number of areas in which we need improvements to LibreOffice in order for it to work well
 181 16:37:37 <joanie> for Orca users anyway
 182 16:37:44 <joanie> so what I am wondering is the following:
 183 16:38:08 <joanie> if the Board wants a bigger project proposal, why not "document access" (better phrase to be determined)
 184 16:38:26 <joanie> this would include both Evince and a to-be-specified-task(s) for LibreOffice
 185 16:38:41 <joanie> (we do have open bugs filed in the libreoffice bugzilla btw)
 186 16:38:48 <joanie> (not that we're calling this bug fixing)
 187 16:39:03 <joanie> in which case we'd have two "big" projects for this money
 188 16:39:16 <joanie> 1. Caret and focus tracking (and whatever other mag stuff we might want/need)
 189 16:39:33 <joanie> 2. Document accessibility (evince, libre office, and possibly the new documents feature)
 190 16:39:43 <joanie> I will add one more note before I yield
 191 16:39:55 <joanie> there is an additional 10k that we originally got from Mozilla
 192 16:40:02 <joanie> that was for Orca performance improvements
 193 16:40:08 <joanie> the contract was awarded to Emergya
 194 16:40:13 <joanie> Emergya failed to complete the work
 195 16:40:23 <joanie> so unofficially we seem to have 30,000 USD
 196 16:40:26 <joanie> not 20,000
 197 16:40:31 * joanie yields the floor
 198 16:40:40 <clown> that 10k wasn't actually spent?
 199 16:40:45 <clown> from moz
 200 16:40:46 <joanie> correct clown
 201 16:40:50 <joanie> we still have it
 202 16:40:57 <clown> interesting.
 203 16:41:33 <jjmarin> I like joanie's idea :-)
 204 16:41:47 <clown> looking over the proposals, it would be funny to use that 10k for WebKitGTK+...
 205 16:41:49 <API> well, it also had a focused title
 206 16:41:56 <joanie> clown: ;)
 207 16:42:02 <clown> rather, ironic.
 208 16:42:25 * clown looks to see if davidb is in the room.
 209 16:42:34 <API> buh!
 210 16:43:39 <clown> so, a third proposal is to find the slow parts of Orca, and eliminate them?
 211 16:43:41 <joanie> so other thoughts on this matter? I really have yielded the floor and would like discussion. Really. /me smiles
 212 16:43:45 <joanie> clown: no
 213 16:44:07 <joanie> clown: between work I have already done and work mgorse has done, Orca performance is improved quite a bit
 214 16:44:19 <joanie> and I'm still working on that independent of "getting paid to"
 215 16:44:27 <clown> oh, it's just that was what the 10k was for.  Now, we can spend it "any way we want".
 216 16:44:28 <joanie> so I think we can remove that as an item
 217 16:44:32 <joanie> correct
 218 16:44:34 <joanie> well
 219 16:44:39 <joanie> we can "propose" things
 220 16:44:40 <joanie> :)
 221 16:44:43 <clown> right.
 222 16:44:46 <joanie> for the Board to consider
 223 16:45:10 <joanie> and, again, I am not able to vote or weigh in on that discussion
 224 16:45:18 <joanie> due to multiple conflicts of interest
 225 16:45:44 <API> btw, and talking about recusing and stuff
 226 16:45:54 <API> when it was that Orca performance bid
 227 16:45:59 <API> the one that won Emergy
 228 16:46:01 <API> Emergya
 229 16:46:18 <API> a "tribunal" was created to decide which company would be assigned
 230 16:46:27 <API> (that was easy, only Emergya appeared)
 231 16:46:33 <API> I was at that tribunal
 232 16:46:51 <API> so not sure if this time it will be a pure Board thing to assign the project
 233 16:46:57 <API> or they would create a tribunal
 234 16:47:10 <joanie> API I think that the Board will likely decide
 235 16:47:12 <API> going to the point: if a tribunal is created, I would also need to recuse myself
 236 16:47:15 <joanie> with input from us
 237 16:47:41 <joanie> if we have to create a beyond-board beyond-team tribunal this will never move forward
 238 16:47:54 <joanie> so for now, let us assume the following:
 239 16:47:57 <joanie> 1. We make a proposal
 240 16:48:00 <joanie> 2. We have input
 241 16:48:10 <joanie> 3. We don't get to vote on final awards
 242 16:48:13 <joanie> ok?
 243 16:48:17 <API> ok
 244 16:48:36 <joanie> so I am proposing the following for official consideration by those here:
 245 16:48:39 <API> anyway, everybody on the meeting agree with that "document access" idea?
 246 16:48:44 <joanie> actually lemme info this
 247 16:48:46 * API waiting
 248 16:49:03 <mgorse> It's fine with me as long as we can clearly define it
 249 16:49:03 <joanie> #info Joanie proposes the following for team consideration, discussion, and possibly a vote
 250 16:49:21 <jjmarin> I like the evince+documents proposal because I think users will benefit a lot from the result of this work. Other proposals, like performance or regression testing are important, but less evident for the users
 251 16:49:21 <joanie> #info There would be two "projects" put out for bid
 252 16:49:37 * joanie asks people to hold on
 253 16:49:44 <joanie> so that we can enter this properly into the minutes
 254 16:49:48 * joanie continues
 255 16:50:21 <joanie> #info The first project (to be refined) would be: GNOME Shell Magnifier improvements. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to, caret and focus tracking.
 256 16:51:17 <joanie> #info The second project (to be refined) would be: Document Accessibility. This would include, but not necessarily be limited to: Evince accessibility implementation, GNOME Documents accessibility, and (possibly) LibreOffice Document accessibility.
 257 16:51:40 * joanie yields floor for infoed input
 258 16:52:49 * clown is composing something.
 259 16:53:32 <jjmarin> joanie: do you mean GNOME Documents, the app https://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Documents , right ?
 260 16:53:37 <joanie> yes
 261 16:53:51 <joanie> you had said it wasn't all that accessible (right?)
 262 16:53:56 <clown> #info Note that focus/caret tracking is for more than the magnifier.  It's really a device that other GNOME Shell objects can make use of.  An example is the onscreen keyboard.
 263 16:54:35 <API> joanie, fwiw the big problem right now with Documents is the lack of keyboard navigation
 264 16:54:56 <joanie> API please info that
 265 16:56:19 <API> #info as far as the people at the meeting knows, the big accessibility problem of Document is their lack of keyboard navigation, something that Documents developers are already aware of
 266 16:56:58 <joanie> aware of and working on?
 267 16:56:58 <API> #info, FWIW, API likes joanmarie proposal
 268 16:57:12 <API> joanie, don't know about the and
 269 16:57:30 <joanie> okay we'll (potentially) add that to a to-do/to-find-out list
 270 16:57:39 <joanie> so I like my idea. API does.
 271 16:57:41 <joanie> others?
 272 16:57:45 <joanie> and please info it
 273 16:58:32 <mgorse> #info mgorse agrees with the proposal
 274 16:58:57 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo agrees with the proposal.
 275 16:59:11 <clown> #info Joseph agrees with the proposal.
 276 16:59:16 <jjmarin> #Info Juanjo thinks it is also worth to mention that Evince support other formats like PS and XPS, so it must clear in the proposal if the work will include other formats than PDF
 277 16:59:20 <joanie> thanks
 278 16:59:57 <joanie> jjmarin: I believe once things are "in evince" the original format doesn't matter. But I'm not positive.
 279 17:00:27 <joanie> e.g. in Abiword you can open a document and it won't be accessible, but the same document would be in gedit or open office
 280 17:00:42 <joanie> because it's the Abiword text widget that is not accessible
 281 17:00:45 <API> taking into account that we don't know
 282 17:00:48 <joanie> rather than the underlying document
 283 17:00:50 <API> my vote is pdf first
 284 17:00:55 <joanie> indeed
 285 17:01:03 <joanie> but it's another to-find out
 286 17:01:13 <jjmarin> yes, PDF is the main target
 287 17:01:30 <joanie> okay so what are the next steps?
 288 17:02:02 <joanie> btw, I don't think we need the formal proposal written by next week. Just something we can bounce off the Board
 289 17:02:07 <joanie> to get their input
 290 17:02:21 <API> joanie, should we also ask gnome-accessibility-list?
 291 17:02:34 <API> or we could assume that the "blessing" of the people here today would be enough?
 292 17:02:44 <joanie> what I stated on the a11y list is:
 293 17:02:54 <joanie> we will discuss this at this meeting and the next
 294 17:03:05 <joanie> that way people who cannot come to today's meeting can come to the next
 295 17:03:08 <joanie> and/or provide input
 296 17:03:22 <joanie> if we open things up to an everyone can bikeshed on the list
 297 17:03:29 <joanie> everyone WILL bikeshed on the list
 298 17:03:33 <joanie> I want this to be a team decision
 299 17:03:47 <joanie> but we have many people I consider "not team" on that list
 300 17:03:53 <joanie> who like to hear themselves talk
 301 17:03:53 <joanie> ;)
 302 17:04:09 <API> true, you already announced that on the list
 303 17:04:12 <joanie> if people really care they should be here
 304 17:04:18 <joanie> and/or they should get in touch
 305 17:04:22 <API> well, a nnounced that we planned to talk about that here
 306 17:04:23 <joanie> the Board has been waiting
 307 17:04:25 <API> today
 308 17:05:10 <joanie> what I can/will do when I do the minutes is another pointer to the fact that this is the direction (i.e. the two proposed areas)
 309 17:05:21 <joanie> and encourage people who have opinions to show up
 310 17:05:38 <API> makes sense,
 311 17:05:47 <joanie> does that make sense to everyone? or have I become a bikeshed-hating fascist?
 312 17:05:48 <jjmarin> +1
 313 17:05:50 <joanie> ;)
 314 17:06:02 <joanie> I suppose those are not mutually exclusive
 315 17:06:34 <API> ok, so anything else in this point?
 316 17:06:42 <clown> here's a compromise:  send email to the core team members only, especially the ones that are not here.
 317 17:06:55 <joanie> how do we define that
 318 17:07:03 <joanie> core team members could and should be here
 319 17:07:07 <joanie> and/or can be here next week
 320 17:07:10 <clown> that would avoid the bike shed problem.
 321 17:07:16 <API> clown, but as joanmarie said, all this stuff is being announced
 322 17:07:22 <API> and we are going to write it on the minutes
 323 17:07:40 <API> "the other core members", if interested, already know where to look on
 324 17:08:04 <clown> okay.
 325 17:08:15 <joanie> clown: who in particular?
 326 17:09:07 <clown> aleiva? mscanchez/
 327 17:09:29 <clown> maybe peter?
 328 17:10:13 <joanie> clown: I guess that makes me wonder what the definition of "core" is
 329 17:10:37 <clown> yes.  maybe "core" is just the die-hards who regularly attend...
 330 17:10:50 <joanie> Peter wasn't even aware that Orca wasn't doing magnification even though it has been discussed on the gnome-accessibility-list the orca-list and with him privately
 331 17:11:07 <joanie> found the emails that he commented on which included the original proof of concept
 332 17:11:19 <joanie> aleiva is someone I really like and would love to see active
 333 17:11:36 <joanie> but he has not contributed to gnome-accessibility in quite some time
 334 17:11:56 <clown> well, there's a case in point (with Peter):  I've spent a lot of time this past week explaining to him.
 335 17:11:59 <joanie> Mario is a colleague of mine and still doing webkitgtk accessibility, but he is moving on to non-a11y stuff (hence API and I doing some of that)
 336 17:12:13 <joanie> to me, core people are the ones actually doing actual work
 337 17:12:18 <joanie> and we are all here in this room
 338 17:12:32 <joanie> the one "missing" person I think
 339 17:12:37 <joanie> is javi hernandez
 340 17:12:50 <clown> I don't want us to reach the final stage in two weeks, and then have a number of "core" members start to disagree with the decisions then.
 341 17:12:51 <joanie> who does maintain accerciser and is doing actual work
 342 17:12:51 <API> clown, and anyway, as I said, we properly announced this, and we are going to write the conclusions at the meeting minutes
 343 17:13:07 <jjmarin> FWIW, the proposal goes in the direction of https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Marketing/FoG that it is what people donate. I don't think this proposal will suprise too much anyway :-)
 344 17:13:10 <joanie> clown: tell you what, if those members have a problem....
 345 17:13:14 <API> if they are interested, they have the place to look for information
 346 17:13:21 <joanie> I personally (and publically) will handle it
 347 17:13:32 <clown> good point jjmarin.
 348 17:13:54 <clown> okay.
 349 17:14:24 <clown> also, I"ll not that javi is usually here.
 350 17:14:27 <clown> "note"
 351 17:14:58 <joanie> yeah, he's the one missing "core" guy
 352 17:14:59 <joanie> imho
 353 17:15:14 <joanie> the rest are charming people; not active team members
 354 17:15:29 <clown> "charming"?
 355 17:15:35 <clown> they have nice smiles?
 356 17:15:35 <joanie> lovely
 357 17:15:39 <joanie> fun to have beer with
 358 17:15:42 <joanie> not bad people
 359 17:15:47 <joanie> but not team members either
 360 17:15:50 <joanie> imho
 361 17:16:18 <API> sooo
 362 17:16:23 <API> something else in this point?
 363 17:16:32 * clown done.
 364 17:16:32 * joanie sits down before API kills her
 365 17:16:43 <joanie> one action though
 366 17:16:46 <joanie> so I don't forget
 367 17:16:47 <API> no problem, this point was important
 368 17:17:41 <joanie> #action Joanie, when doing the minutes, will include in the meeting reminder text which includes the two proposed areas of work and encourage "core members" -- as well as others with input -- to attend next meeting where a decision will be reached.
 369 17:17:46 <joanie> done
 370 17:18:15 <API> ok, so if you don't mind
 371 17:18:20 <API> I will move to the rest of the points
 372 17:18:24 <API> we are already 20 minutes over time
 373 17:18:42 <API> but I guess that we can make a quick overview on them
 374 17:18:43 <API> so
 375 17:18:44 <API> moving?
 376 17:18:45 * clown notes that he can stay longer, if necessary.
 377 17:19:25 <API> so moving I see
 378 17:19:35 <API> #topic Feature proposals period for 3.8 started.
 379 17:19:41 <clown> #info mclasen migrated the focus/caret tracking feature page over from 3.6 features.
 380 17:19:49 <clown> #info Joseph updated the statuus of focus/caret tracking.
 381 17:19:55 <clown> (done).
 382 17:20:00 <API> #info reminder: feature proposals period for 3.8 started, start to think, and made your proposals
 383 17:20:00 <API> done
 384 17:20:07 <API> questions?
 385 17:20:20 <joanie> I have to think now?
 386 17:20:31 <API> no, as we are already over time
 387 17:20:37 <API> and we already mentioned it on previous meeting
 388 17:20:40 <API> and will do in next
 389 17:20:44 <API> reminder sent
 390 17:20:49 <API> lets move to next item
 391 17:21:05 <API> #topic GNOME 3.6
 392 17:21:18 <API> #info joseph made a good summary of his work on https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Meetings
 393 17:21:20 <API> read it
 394 17:21:28 <clown> I'll info the main points, but lets move the discussion to #a11y.
 395 17:21:49 <API> #info API was mostly working on webkitgtk stuff these days, nothing to say in relation with gnome-shell
 396 17:21:51 <clown> #info Added patch to distribute interim focus tracker -- needs review.
 397 17:22:06 <clown> #info Peter wants the focus tracker to launch on startup.
 398 17:22:24 <clown> #info I think launching on login is good enough, but what is the correct approach?
 399 17:22:41 <clown> #info and should there be a ".desktop" file to launch it from the GUI?
 400 17:22:43 <clown> (done).
 401 17:23:23 <API> #info API info mostly applies to joanie, also with some Orca work
 402 17:23:27 <API> so, anyone else?
 403 17:23:30 <API> can I move?
 404 17:23:37 <clown> fine with me.
 405 17:24:38 <API> #topic Marketing and Fundraising.
 406 17:24:39 <API> jjmarin, ?
 407 17:25:11 <jjmarin> #Info The Marketing team is writing the Release Notes for GNOME 3.6.  By now, I have the Accessibility always on and the Brightness, Contrast and Inversion in the list.
 408 17:25:42 <jjmarin> Could you bring me more features to add for the notes ?
 409 17:25:46 <clown> do you want me to take a look at the BCI notes?
 410 17:26:14 <joanie> jjmarin: Improved braille access
 411 17:26:26 <joanie> also improved Epiphany/WebKitGtk access
 412 17:27:05 <jjmarin> joanie: thanks, I'll ask you for more details
 413 17:27:13 <jjmarin> BTW, http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.6/index.html.en  user:gnome pass:3.6
 414 17:27:37 <joanie> jjmarin: okay, but I have learned that no matter what I say the other marketeers don't like it
 415 17:27:40 <joanie> too much detail
 416 17:27:42 <joanie> ;)
 417 17:27:53 * clown whoops, I accidentally erased all the notes.
 418 17:28:03 * clown just kidding...
 419 17:28:40 <joanie> clown: distraction-free release notes
 420 17:28:51 * joanie hides before API beats her with a stick
 421 17:29:01 * jjmarin wasn't very impressed because I don't know what BCI notes really are
 422 17:29:18 <joanie> the perils of being a humble minion are many
 423 17:29:23 <API> jjmarin, Brightness Contrast and Inversion
 424 17:29:24 <API> BCI
 425 17:29:26 <clown> right.
 426 17:30:23 <API> well, anything else here then?
 427 17:30:24 <clown> notes that we also got gray-scale effects in as well.  worth mentioning, jjmarin?
 428 17:30:45 <clown> it's actually Brightness, Contrast, Inversion, and Gray Scale.
 429 17:31:17 <jjmarin> ok, np.
 430 17:31:44 <jjmarin> Can you read the current release notes about BCI and send me some feedback
 431 17:31:45 <clown> cool
 432 17:31:53 <clown> sure, jjmarin
 433 17:32:03 <jjmarin> clown: thanks !
 434 17:32:17 <API> ok, lets move to the next point then
 435 17:32:20 <API> #topic Q3 report.
 436 17:32:31 <joanie> they haven't even been called for yet, right?
 437 17:32:33 <clown> okay, I added that to the agenda,
 438 17:32:45 <API> hmm
 439 17:32:46 <API> true
 440 17:32:48 <clown> well, that's what I noticed when I started to write mine up.
 441 17:32:57 <API> in fact the topic should be
 442 17:32:57 <clown> we are in the third quarter.
 443 17:33:02 <API> #topic Q2 report
 444 17:33:18 <clown> yes, but last week we decided to do the Q3 report.
 445 17:33:20 <API> hmm, why I don't receive a "topic changed" message
 446 17:33:22 <joanie> #info Joanie was going to write the q2 this morning but rawhide took out her system
 447 17:33:29 <joanie> API bot lost ops
 448 17:33:29 <clown> joanie even created a staging page for it.
 449 17:33:31 <API> clown, probably it was a typo
 450 17:33:37 <joanie> when my server went down
 451 17:33:40 <API> we were talking about q2
 452 17:33:43 <API> joanie, ok
 453 17:33:57 <joanie> #info Joanie will try to write the Q2 tomorrow
 454 17:34:17 <joanie> #info Joanie has had a crazy-busy couple of months and will get back on track soon. She promises.
 455 17:34:18 <clown> joanie created this at last week's meeting:  https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2012/Q3
 456 17:34:32 <joanie> clown: at your request :)
 457 17:34:35 <clown> not merely a typo.  Just not enough coffee last week.
 458 17:34:52 <clown> right, that's why I added to this week's agenda.
 459 17:34:55 <clown> to correct myself!
 460 17:34:59 <joanie> ah
 461 17:35:37 <clown> sorry for leading everyone astray.
 462 17:35:50 <joanie> clown: you didn't. I just thought you were being efficient
 463 17:35:58 <API> #info last week we were talking about q3, that was an error, pleaes people we need to fill the q2 report
 464 17:36:06 <joanie> no
 465 17:36:16 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2012/Q2
 466 17:36:20 <API> so, anything else in this point?
 467 17:36:21 <joanie> #info people filled in the q2 already. Joanie needs to write the summary.
 468 17:36:26 <API> more questions and doubts?
 469 17:36:29 <joanie> #info Q2s are late and it is joanie's fault
 470 17:36:37 <clown> joanie needs an action?
 471 17:36:38 <API> joanie, really?
 472 17:36:42 <API> I dont see anything here:
 473 17:36:44 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2012/Q2
 474 17:36:47 <joanie> clown: I already hve an action
 475 17:37:09 <clown> API, I see something.
 476 17:37:19 <joanie> I do too
 477 17:37:21 <joanie> lots of stuff
 478 17:37:23 <joanie> but no summary
 479 17:37:27 <joanie> because I have been busy
 480 17:37:28 <clown> magnifier, sales
 481 17:37:32 * joanie sighs
 482 17:37:38 <API> ok
 483 17:37:54 <clown> and, it needs to be transferred to the main overall gnome Q2 report.
 484 17:37:59 <API> so as it seems that people already have all the information
 485 17:38:06 <joanie> clown: I do that AFTER I write the summary
 486 17:38:06 <API> anything else in this point
 487 17:38:07 <API> ?
 488 17:38:26 <clown> nope.
 489 17:38:35 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
 490 17:38:40 * clown notes that doing it AFTER is a great idea, joanie.
 491 17:38:46 <joanie> ;)
 492 17:38:48 <API> something not scheduled (and quick) to add to this meeting?
 493 17:39:02 <joanie> #info Joanie says "don't switch to rawhide"
 494 17:39:11 <mgorse> Is anyone planning to go to the Boston Summit? I'm trying to decide whether I'm going.
 495 17:39:30 <mgorse> It looks like it'll be in Boston (or, actually, Cambridge), rather than, say, Montreal
 496 17:39:44 <API> mgorse, travel committee accepted my request
 497 17:39:50 <API> so unless something strange happens
 498 17:39:52 <API> I will be there
 499 17:39:53 <joanie> mgorse: I'll be there for the second and third day in theory
 500 17:40:00 <mgorse> ok
 501 17:40:10 <joanie> I have a conflict due to the grace hopper open source day
 502 17:40:20 <joanie> so it's nh -> dc -> nh -> boston
 503 17:40:27 <joanie> in like 48 hours
 504 17:40:31 <mgorse> :(
 505 17:40:46 <joanie> but API will fearlessly represent us
 506 17:40:47 <joanie> :)
 507 17:41:14 <clown> it's probably the same weekend as Canadian thanksgiving again, but I'll check that.
 508 17:41:21 <joanie> yup
 509 17:41:58 <clown> it's unlikely I'll be there, then.
 510 17:42:00 * jjmarin didn't know Canadians also have a thanksgiving day :-)
 511 17:43:31 <jjmarin> I guess they thank to Colombus :-P
 512 17:43:32 <clown> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Thanksgiving
 513 17:44:59 <joanie> if we can hold out for 15 minutes we will have had a two hour meeting. :P
 514 17:46:41 <API> and in spite of that nobody said nothing
 515 17:46:48 * joanie nods
 516 17:46:53 <API> and we are really far from our record of 2:30 hours
 517 17:46:57 <API> so, closing the meeting?
 518 17:47:06 * API yes yes
 519 17:47:09 <joanie> yeah, close it
 520 17:47:11 <API> #endmeeting