16:06:46 <API> #startmeeting
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.
16:06:46 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:07:13 <API> #topic Choosing the project(s) to be proposed for use of the FoG funds.
16:07:32 <API> #info as we were saying during the last two meetings, FoG for accessibility has ended
16:07:44 <API> #info and it is the moment to think on how to use that money
16:07:56 <API> #info original list of proposals here:
16:08:00 <API> #info https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Marketing/FoG
16:08:34 <API> #info we concluded to look on this during this week, but we couldn't
16:08:57 <API> #info we should try to give a specific deadline to have a proposal, I say something like 2 weeks
16:08:58 <API> done
16:09:03 <API> questions, doubts, comments?
16:09:14 <clown> API, can you clarify your last info?
16:09:26 <clown> "we concluded to look on this during this week, but we couldn't"
16:09:39 <API> clown, I mean that on last meeting we also talked about htat
16:09:54 <joanie> we've been talking about it for a while now
16:09:56 <API> and afair, the conclusion was working during that week in order to have something "baked"
16:10:07 <API> and that was not the case
16:10:20 <API> we are basically in the same state that two weeks ago
16:10:29 <API> "fog finished, need to decide how to use the money"
16:10:45 <clown> right. but are you saying we are not going to discuss this today?
16:10:47 <API> that info tried to say that we are stalled with respect to this
16:11:01 <clown> and we are currently stalled?
16:11:12 * joanie tries
16:11:20 <joanie> 1. We need a decision/consensus
16:11:28 <joanie> 2. We shall discuss it at this meeting and the next
16:11:44 <joanie> 3. By the end of the next meeting we should have an answer
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 ?
16:11:49 <joanie> The Board is waiting
16:11:58 <joanie> jjmarin: we need to decide that
16:12:07 <jjmarin> ok
16:12:12 <joanie> but the Board feels that Bounties are not the way to go
16:12:22 <joanie> The situation is this:
16:12:30 <joanie> We came up with a list of stuff
16:12:36 <joanie> people gave us money based on that
16:12:39 <joanie> we cannot do it all
16:12:50 <joanie> some members of the Board do not like the Bugfixing idea
16:12:51 <clown> good point re:  "people gave us money based on that
16:12:59 <joanie> of the remaining items, let's prioritize
16:13:11 <joanie> can we come up with 3 must haves to start a proper discussion?
16:13:25 <joanie> I for one think the fact that we STILL do not have accessible PDFs is shameful
16:13:36 <joanie> so I'd like to toss in that one as a must-have-to-debate
16:13:38 <joanie> what else?
16:14:00 <jjmarin> the other thing is that many of the items from the list are wip
16:14:08 <API> fwiw, I also don't like too much that bugfixing idea
16:14:27 <joanie> it's not shiny, but the reality is that we have a lot of a11y breakage
16:14:29 <joanie> nautilus
16:14:31 <joanie> evolution
16:14:40 <joanie> some gtk+
16:14:44 <API> I see that more for students that want to join and start with something
16:15:12 <API> jjmarin, what do you mean for "many of the items are wip"?
16:15:21 <jjmarin> work in progress
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?
16:15:44 <joanie> mgorse: they have not proposed alternatives
16:15:49 <joanie> they do expect us to propose something
16:15:57 <API> jjmarin, ah ok, Im too used to see that as WIP
16:15:59 <API> anyway
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
16:16:10 <API> in general all the stuff on accessibility are WIP
16:16:27 <API> but always postponed by the people due dayjob
16:16:32 <API> that was the reason of FoG
16:16:38 <API> well one of the reasons
16:16:49 <API> that people could focus
16:16:51 <API> focus-focus
16:16:58 <API> on the stuff, instead of using random time
16:17:00 <mgorse> yeah, it's not clear to me what the ythink we should propose. Knowing what their concerns are might help
16:17:22 <joanie> they don't have concerns as much as they want a proposal
16:17:27 <joanie> they do not like "bug fixing"
16:17:31 <clown> well, the focus tracking was proposed since it was work not covered by our grants.
16:17:52 <joanie> clown: would you like to include that as a must-have-to-debate?
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
16:18:17 <joanie> mgorse: not sure that's it
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.
16:18:49 <joanie> clown: you can recuse yourself from final vote
16:18:54 <joanie> I'm in that boat on the board
16:19:03 <joanie> as long as we know the conflict of interest it is ok
16:19:04 <clown> but not from proposing it as a "must have".
16:19:04 <clown> ?
16:19:19 <joanie> ??
16:19:31 <clown> in which case, I will propose it as a "must have" while noting that i'm biased...
16:19:37 <joanie> gotcha
16:19:39 <joanie> so noted
16:19:46 <joanie> so we have two items
16:19:50 <joanie> do we have a third?
16:20:14 <API> joanie, two items == evince + focus tracking?
16:20:21 <joanie> yup
16:20:29 <clown> I guess I would note that Peter would likely also promote it as "must have".  Does he count?
16:21:05 <joanie> Peter is not here
16:21:08 <joanie> he can come next week
16:21:15 <joanie> we'll continue the discussion then
16:21:22 <clown> I'll let him know.
16:21:27 <clown> :-)
16:21:40 <joanie> so there's one other thing I'll toss out there in keeping with a theme
16:21:51 <joanie> but a bit of background/history for context
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
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
16:23:11 <jjmarin> I think Evince work  small money
16:23:14 <joanie> but it's a) a possibility and b) a preface to what I'm about to say next
16:23:19 <joanie> hold on jjmarin
16:23:27 <mgorse> It's also tied in with their porting to gtk 3, whenever they decide to do that
16:23:42 <joanie> Bastien's mentioning Gecko got me to thinking
16:23:54 <API> jjmarin, what do you mean?
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)
16:23:58 <joanie> if the idea is that we don't have to limit things to "strictly in gnome"
16:24:07 <API> that fog it is not enough money for the evince thing?
16:24:09 <joanie> mgorse: exactly re invest their own resources
16:24:17 * joanie waits for everyone else
16:24:22 * clown wants people to talk at once.
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
16:24:42 * clown meaning, I'm not following the above.
16:24:59 <joanie> clown: I'm waiting
16:25:09 <clown> who has the floor?
16:25:19 <joanie> I'd like it
16:25:23 <API> jjmarin, sorry but I don't think so
16:25:29 <API> Guadalinfo project started the work
16:25:34 <API> but there are still a lot to do
16:25:42 <API> what danigm was trying to do these days
16:25:51 <API> was getting the a11y support that had at the guadalinfo project times
16:26:02 <API> but althouth that was better than nothing
16:26:15 <API> was not enough to evince be considered accessible
16:26:56 <joanie> moreover danigm did it wrong
16:27:00 <joanie> he did not research orca
16:27:06 <joanie> he took a random guess
16:27:14 <joanie> figured Orca provided all access by flat review
16:27:26 <joanie> demonstrated to me in Sevilla his totally inadequate solution
16:27:41 <joanie> and we had a long chat about what really needed to be done
16:27:49 <joanie> and that work continues to not be done
16:27:50 <API> joanie, that was I meant with "there are still work to do"
16:27:58 <API> what danigm did can be reused
16:28:02 <API> atk implementation and so on
16:28:11 <API> but there are still work to do in order to be usable with orca
16:28:13 <joanie> API I know. What I am saying is that much of the original work was a waste of time
16:28:21 <API> that also happened to me with gnome-shell
16:28:33 <API> having several atk interfaces implemented on clutter was not enough
16:28:46 <API> I was also too optimistic at that phase
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
16:29:04 <joanie> the problem when a project gets awarded to the lowest bidder is that you get what you pay for
16:29:32 <joanie> jjmarin: any other questions about whether or not Evince is a non-trivial project which must actually get done?
16:30:13 <jjmarin> thanks for the clarification.
16:30:25 <joanie> mgorse: you had fewer questions then clown
16:30:26 <jjmarin> Now I think is more money :-)
16:30:35 <joanie> so mgorse what questions do you have?
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
16:31:43 <joanie> mgorse: ok
16:31:56 <joanie> they are saying "give us a proposal"
16:32:07 <joanie> they are saying "we don't like 'bugfixing'"
16:32:19 <joanie> other than that, they're not saying much. They want a proposal
16:32:33 <joanie> and we cannot move forward in discussions or use the money until we have a proposal
16:32:39 <joanie> make sense?
16:32:42 <API> mgorse, they are just letting us "the experts" to decide what is the best way to use the money
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
16:33:06 <joanie> mgorse: I don't think it's a bug
16:33:15 <joanie> it's a ahem "feature"
16:33:29 <clown> a feature in need of an implemenation?
16:33:34 <joanie> :)
16:33:38 <joanie> yeah
16:33:42 <clown> "implementation"
16:33:45 <clown> oka
16:33:46 <clown> okay
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
16:33:53 <joanie> mgorse: correct
16:34:11 <joanie> mind you, hunting is not called for. We know what is broken (e.g. evolution, naultilus)
16:34:20 <API> mgorse, about bugfixing they mentioned this kind of "a bunch of small/trivial bugfixes"
16:34:30 <API> this is the same reason I said that I agree
16:34:36 <mgorse> ok
16:34:46 <joanie> clown: so what other questions did you have?
16:34:46 <API> I see that bugfixing as something someone that want to start could do
16:34:54 <API> ie: Googlle summer of code
16:35:02 <API> or any gnome internship etc
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.
16:35:28 <clown> but couldn't follow the thread.
16:35:28 <joanie> okay
16:35:37 <joanie> yeah, that's why I stopped
16:35:42 <joanie> I'm taking the floor now
16:35:49 <joanie> I'll yield it shortly (I hope)
16:35:57 <joanie> so back to what I was attempting to say
16:36:18 <joanie> Bastien introduced the notion that we are not limited necessarily to "only fixing/implementing gnome stuff"
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
16:37:11 <joanie> official == officially recommended
16:37:30 <joanie> there are a number of areas in which we need improvements to LibreOffice in order for it to work well
16:37:37 <joanie> for Orca users anyway
16:37:44 <joanie> so what I am wondering is the following:
16:38:08 <joanie> if the Board wants a bigger project proposal, why not "document access" (better phrase to be determined)
16:38:26 <joanie> this would include both Evince and a to-be-specified-task(s) for LibreOffice
16:38:41 <joanie> (we do have open bugs filed in the libreoffice bugzilla btw)
16:38:48 <joanie> (not that we're calling this bug fixing)
16:39:03 <joanie> in which case we'd have two "big" projects for this money
16:39:16 <joanie> 1. Caret and focus tracking (and whatever other mag stuff we might want/need)
16:39:33 <joanie> 2. Document accessibility (evince, libre office, and possibly the new documents feature)
16:39:43 <joanie> I will add one more note before I yield
16:39:55 <joanie> there is an additional 10k that we originally got from Mozilla
16:40:02 <joanie> that was for Orca performance improvements
16:40:08 <joanie> the contract was awarded to Emergya
16:40:13 <joanie> Emergya failed to complete the work
16:40:23 <joanie> so unofficially we seem to have 30,000 USD
16:40:26 <joanie> not 20,000
16:40:31 * joanie yields the floor
16:40:40 <clown> that 10k wasn't actually spent?
16:40:45 <clown> from moz
16:40:46 <joanie> correct clown
16:40:50 <joanie> we still have it
16:40:57 <clown> interesting.
16:41:33 <jjmarin> I like joanie's idea :-)
16:41:47 <clown> looking over the proposals, it would be funny to use that 10k for WebKitGTK+...
16:41:49 <API> well, it also had a focused title
16:41:56 <joanie> clown: ;)
16:42:02 <clown> rather, ironic.
16:42:25 * clown looks to see if davidb is in the room.
16:42:34 <API> buh!
16:43:39 <clown> so, a third proposal is to find the slow parts of Orca, and eliminate them?
16:43:41 <joanie> so other thoughts on this matter? I really have yielded the floor and would like discussion. Really. /me smiles
16:43:45 <joanie> clown: no
16:44:07 <joanie> clown: between work I have already done and work mgorse has done, Orca performance is improved quite a bit
16:44:19 <joanie> and I'm still working on that independent of "getting paid to"
16:44:27 <clown> oh, it's just that was what the 10k was for.  Now, we can spend it "any way we want".
16:44:28 <joanie> so I think we can remove that as an item
16:44:32 <joanie> correct
16:44:34 <joanie> well
16:44:39 <joanie> we can "propose" things
16:44:40 <joanie> :)
16:44:43 <clown> right.
16:44:46 <joanie> for the Board to consider
16:45:10 <joanie> and, again, I am not able to vote or weigh in on that discussion
16:45:18 <joanie> due to multiple conflicts of interest
16:45:44 <API> btw, and talking about recusing and stuff
16:45:54 <API> when it was that Orca performance bid
16:45:59 <API> the one that won Emergy
16:46:01 <API> Emergya
16:46:18 <API> a "tribunal" was created to decide which company would be assigned
16:46:27 <API> (that was easy, only Emergya appeared)
16:46:33 <API> I was at that tribunal
16:46:51 <API> so not sure if this time it will be a pure Board thing to assign the project
16:46:57 <API> or they would create a tribunal
16:47:10 <joanie> API I think that the Board will likely decide
16:47:12 <API> going to the point: if a tribunal is created, I would also need to recuse myself
16:47:15 <joanie> with input from us
16:47:41 <joanie> if we have to create a beyond-board beyond-team tribunal this will never move forward
16:47:54 <joanie> so for now, let us assume the following:
16:47:57 <joanie> 1. We make a proposal
16:48:00 <joanie> 2. We have input
16:48:10 <joanie> 3. We don't get to vote on final awards
16:48:13 <joanie> ok?
16:48:17 <API> ok
16:48:36 <joanie> so I am proposing the following for official consideration by those here:
16:48:39 <API> anyway, everybody on the meeting agree with that "document access" idea?
16:48:44 <joanie> actually lemme info this
16:48:46 * API waiting
16:49:03 <mgorse> It's fine with me as long as we can clearly define it
16:49:03 <joanie> #info Joanie proposes the following for team consideration, discussion, and possibly a vote
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
16:49:21 <joanie> #info There would be two "projects" put out for bid
16:49:37 * joanie asks people to hold on
16:49:44 <joanie> so that we can enter this properly into the minutes
16:49:48 * joanie continues
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.
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.
16:51:40 * joanie yields floor for infoed input
16:52:49 * clown is composing something.
16:53:32 <jjmarin> joanie: do you mean GNOME Documents, the app https://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Documents , right ?
16:53:37 <joanie> yes
16:53:51 <joanie> you had said it wasn't all that accessible (right?)
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.
16:54:35 <API> joanie, fwiw the big problem right now with Documents is the lack of keyboard navigation
16:54:56 <joanie> API please info that
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
16:56:58 <joanie> aware of and working on?
16:56:58 <API> #info, FWIW, API likes joanmarie proposal
16:57:12 <API> joanie, don't know about the and
16:57:30 <joanie> okay we'll (potentially) add that to a to-do/to-find-out list
16:57:39 <joanie> so I like my idea. API does.
16:57:41 <joanie> others?
16:57:45 <joanie> and please info it
16:58:32 <mgorse> #info mgorse agrees with the proposal
16:58:57 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo agrees with the proposal.
16:59:11 <clown> #info Joseph agrees with the proposal.
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
16:59:20 <joanie> thanks
16:59:57 <joanie> jjmarin: I believe once things are "in evince" the original format doesn't matter. But I'm not positive.
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
17:00:42 <joanie> because it's the Abiword text widget that is not accessible
17:00:45 <API> taking into account that we don't know
17:00:48 <joanie> rather than the underlying document
17:00:50 <API> my vote is pdf first
17:00:55 <joanie> indeed
17:01:03 <joanie> but it's another to-find out
17:01:13 <jjmarin> yes, PDF is the main target
17:01:30 <joanie> okay so what are the next steps?
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
17:02:07 <joanie> to get their input
17:02:21 <API> joanie, should we also ask gnome-accessibility-list?
17:02:34 <API> or we could assume that the "blessing" of the people here today would be enough?
17:02:44 <joanie> what I stated on the a11y list is:
17:02:54 <joanie> we will discuss this at this meeting and the next
17:03:05 <joanie> that way people who cannot come to today's meeting can come to the next
17:03:08 <joanie> and/or provide input
17:03:22 <joanie> if we open things up to an everyone can bikeshed on the list
17:03:29 <joanie> everyone WILL bikeshed on the list
17:03:33 <joanie> I want this to be a team decision
17:03:47 <joanie> but we have many people I consider "not team" on that list
17:03:53 <joanie> who like to hear themselves talk
17:03:53 <joanie> ;)
17:04:09 <API> true, you already announced that on the list
17:04:12 <joanie> if people really care they should be here
17:04:18 <joanie> and/or they should get in touch
17:04:22 <API> well, a nnounced that we planned to talk about that here
17:04:23 <joanie> the Board has been waiting
17:04:25 <API> today
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)
17:05:21 <joanie> and encourage people who have opinions to show up
17:05:38 <API> makes sense,
17:05:47 <joanie> does that make sense to everyone? or have I become a bikeshed-hating fascist?
17:05:48 <jjmarin> +1
17:05:50 <joanie> ;)
17:06:02 <joanie> I suppose those are not mutually exclusive
17:06:34 <API> ok, so anything else in this point?
17:06:42 <clown> here's a compromise:  send email to the core team members only, especially the ones that are not here.
17:06:55 <joanie> how do we define that
17:07:03 <joanie> core team members could and should be here
17:07:07 <joanie> and/or can be here next week
17:07:10 <clown> that would avoid the bike shed problem.
17:07:16 <API> clown, but as joanmarie said, all this stuff is being announced
17:07:22 <API> and we are going to write it on the minutes
17:07:40 <API> "the other core members", if interested, already know where to look on
17:08:04 <clown> okay.
17:08:15 <joanie> clown: who in particular?
17:09:07 <clown> aleiva? mscanchez/
17:09:29 <clown> maybe peter?
17:10:13 <joanie> clown: I guess that makes me wonder what the definition of "core" is
17:10:37 <clown> yes.  maybe "core" is just the die-hards who regularly attend...
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
17:11:07 <joanie> found the emails that he commented on which included the original proof of concept
17:11:19 <joanie> aleiva is someone I really like and would love to see active
17:11:36 <joanie> but he has not contributed to gnome-accessibility in quite some time
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.
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)
17:12:13 <joanie> to me, core people are the ones actually doing actual work
17:12:18 <joanie> and we are all here in this room
17:12:32 <joanie> the one "missing" person I think
17:12:37 <joanie> is javi hernandez
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.
17:12:51 <joanie> who does maintain accerciser and is doing actual work
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
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 :-)
17:13:10 <joanie> clown: tell you what, if those members have a problem....
17:13:14 <API> if they are interested, they have the place to look for information
17:13:21 <joanie> I personally (and publically) will handle it
17:13:32 <clown> good point jjmarin.
17:13:54 <clown> okay.
17:14:24 <clown> also, I"ll not that javi is usually here.
17:14:27 <clown> "note"
17:14:58 <joanie> yeah, he's the one missing "core" guy
17:14:59 <joanie> imho
17:15:14 <joanie> the rest are charming people; not active team members
17:15:29 <clown> "charming"?
17:15:35 <clown> they have nice smiles?
17:15:35 <joanie> lovely
17:15:39 <joanie> fun to have beer with
17:15:42 <joanie> not bad people
17:15:47 <joanie> but not team members either
17:15:50 <joanie> imho
17:16:18 <API> sooo
17:16:23 <API> something else in this point?
17:16:32 * clown done.
17:16:32 * joanie sits down before API kills her
17:16:43 <joanie> one action though
17:16:46 <joanie> so I don't forget
17:16:47 <API> no problem, this point was important
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.
17:17:46 <joanie> done
17:18:15 <API> ok, so if you don't mind
17:18:20 <API> I will move to the rest of the points
17:18:24 <API> we are already 20 minutes over time
17:18:42 <API> but I guess that we can make a quick overview on them
17:18:43 <API> so
17:18:44 <API> moving?
17:18:45 * clown notes that he can stay longer, if necessary.
17:19:25 <API> so moving I see
17:19:35 <API> #topic Feature proposals period for 3.8 started.
17:19:41 <clown> #info mclasen migrated the focus/caret tracking feature page over from 3.6 features.
17:19:49 <clown> #info Joseph updated the statuus of focus/caret tracking.
17:19:55 <clown> (done).
17:20:00 <API> #info reminder: feature proposals period for 3.8 started, start to think, and made your proposals
17:20:00 <API> done
17:20:07 <API> questions?
17:20:20 <joanie> I have to think now?
17:20:31 <API> no, as we are already over time
17:20:37 <API> and we already mentioned it on previous meeting
17:20:40 <API> and will do in next
17:20:44 <API> reminder sent
17:20:49 <API> lets move to next item
17:21:05 <API> #topic GNOME 3.6
17:21:18 <API> #info joseph made a good summary of his work on https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Meetings
17:21:20 <API> read it
17:21:28 <clown> I'll info the main points, but lets move the discussion to #a11y.
17:21:49 <API> #info API was mostly working on webkitgtk stuff these days, nothing to say in relation with gnome-shell
17:21:51 <clown> #info Added patch to distribute interim focus tracker -- needs review.
17:22:06 <clown> #info Peter wants the focus tracker to launch on startup.
17:22:24 <clown> #info I think launching on login is good enough, but what is the correct approach?
17:22:41 <clown> #info and should there be a ".desktop" file to launch it from the GUI?
17:22:43 <clown> (done).
17:23:23 <API> #info API info mostly applies to joanie, also with some Orca work
17:23:27 <API> so, anyone else?
17:23:30 <API> can I move?
17:23:37 <clown> fine with me.
17:24:38 <API> #topic Marketing and Fundraising.
17:24:39 <API> jjmarin, ?
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.
17:25:42 <jjmarin> Could you bring me more features to add for the notes ?
17:25:46 <clown> do you want me to take a look at the BCI notes?
17:26:14 <joanie> jjmarin: Improved braille access
17:26:26 <joanie> also improved Epiphany/WebKitGtk access
17:27:05 <jjmarin> joanie: thanks, I'll ask you for more details
17:27:13 <jjmarin> BTW, http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.6/index.html.en  user:gnome pass:3.6
17:27:37 <joanie> jjmarin: okay, but I have learned that no matter what I say the other marketeers don't like it
17:27:40 <joanie> too much detail
17:27:42 <joanie> ;)
17:27:53 * clown whoops, I accidentally erased all the notes.
17:28:03 * clown just kidding...
17:28:40 <joanie> clown: distraction-free release notes
17:28:51 * joanie hides before API beats her with a stick
17:29:01 * jjmarin wasn't very impressed because I don't know what BCI notes really are
17:29:18 <joanie> the perils of being a humble minion are many
17:29:23 <API> jjmarin, Brightness Contrast and Inversion
17:29:24 <API> BCI
17:29:26 <clown> right.
17:30:23 <API> well, anything else here then?
17:30:24 <clown> notes that we also got gray-scale effects in as well.  worth mentioning, jjmarin?
17:30:45 <clown> it's actually Brightness, Contrast, Inversion, and Gray Scale.
17:31:17 <jjmarin> ok, np.
17:31:44 <jjmarin> Can you read the current release notes about BCI and send me some feedback
17:31:45 <clown> cool
17:31:53 <clown> sure, jjmarin
17:32:03 <jjmarin> clown: thanks !
17:32:17 <API> ok, lets move to the next point then
17:32:20 <API> #topic Q3 report.
17:32:31 <joanie> they haven't even been called for yet, right?
17:32:33 <clown> okay, I added that to the agenda,
17:32:45 <API> hmm
17:32:46 <API> true
17:32:48 <clown> well, that's what I noticed when I started to write mine up.
17:32:57 <API> in fact the topic should be
17:32:57 <clown> we are in the third quarter.
17:33:02 <API> #topic Q2 report
17:33:18 <clown> yes, but last week we decided to do the Q3 report.
17:33:20 <API> hmm, why I don't receive a "topic changed" message
17:33:22 <joanie> #info Joanie was going to write the q2 this morning but rawhide took out her system
17:33:29 <joanie> API bot lost ops
17:33:29 <clown> joanie even created a staging page for it.
17:33:31 <API> clown, probably it was a typo
17:33:37 <joanie> when my server went down
17:33:40 <API> we were talking about q2
17:33:43 <API> joanie, ok
17:33:57 <joanie> #info Joanie will try to write the Q2 tomorrow
17:34:17 <joanie> #info Joanie has had a crazy-busy couple of months and will get back on track soon. She promises.
17:34:18 <clown> joanie created this at last week's meeting:  https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2012/Q3
17:34:32 <joanie> clown: at your request :)
17:34:35 <clown> not merely a typo.  Just not enough coffee last week.
17:34:52 <clown> right, that's why I added to this week's agenda.
17:34:55 <clown> to correct myself!
17:34:59 <joanie> ah
17:35:37 <clown> sorry for leading everyone astray.
17:35:50 <joanie> clown: you didn't. I just thought you were being efficient
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
17:36:06 <joanie> no
17:36:16 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2012/Q2
17:36:20 <API> so, anything else in this point?
17:36:21 <joanie> #info people filled in the q2 already. Joanie needs to write the summary.
17:36:26 <API> more questions and doubts?
17:36:29 <joanie> #info Q2s are late and it is joanie's fault
17:36:37 <clown> joanie needs an action?
17:36:38 <API> joanie, really?
17:36:42 <API> I dont see anything here:
17:36:44 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2012/Q2
17:36:47 <joanie> clown: I already hve an action
17:37:09 <clown> API, I see something.
17:37:19 <joanie> I do too
17:37:21 <joanie> lots of stuff
17:37:23 <joanie> but no summary
17:37:27 <joanie> because I have been busy
17:37:28 <clown> magnifier, sales
17:37:32 * joanie sighs
17:37:38 <API> ok
17:37:54 <clown> and, it needs to be transferred to the main overall gnome Q2 report.
17:37:59 <API> so as it seems that people already have all the information
17:38:06 <joanie> clown: I do that AFTER I write the summary
17:38:06 <API> anything else in this point
17:38:07 <API> ?
17:38:26 <clown> nope.
17:38:35 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
17:38:40 * clown notes that doing it AFTER is a great idea, joanie.
17:38:46 <joanie> ;)
17:38:48 <API> something not scheduled (and quick) to add to this meeting?
17:39:02 <joanie> #info Joanie says "don't switch to rawhide"
17:39:11 <mgorse> Is anyone planning to go to the Boston Summit? I'm trying to decide whether I'm going.
17:39:30 <mgorse> It looks like it'll be in Boston (or, actually, Cambridge), rather than, say, Montreal
17:39:44 <API> mgorse, travel committee accepted my request
17:39:50 <API> so unless something strange happens
17:39:52 <API> I will be there
17:39:53 <joanie> mgorse: I'll be there for the second and third day in theory
17:40:00 <mgorse> ok
17:40:10 <joanie> I have a conflict due to the grace hopper open source day
17:40:20 <joanie> so it's nh -> dc -> nh -> boston
17:40:27 <joanie> in like 48 hours
17:40:31 <mgorse> :(
17:40:46 <joanie> but API will fearlessly represent us
17:40:47 <joanie> :)
17:41:14 <clown> it's probably the same weekend as Canadian thanksgiving again, but I'll check that.
17:41:21 <joanie> yup
17:41:58 <clown> it's unlikely I'll be there, then.
17:42:00 * jjmarin didn't know Canadians also have a thanksgiving day :-)
17:43:31 <jjmarin> I guess they thank to Colombus :-P
17:43:32 <clown> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Thanksgiving
17:44:59 <joanie> if we can hold out for 15 minutes we will have had a two hour meeting. :P
17:46:41 <API> and in spite of that nobody said nothing
17:46:48 * joanie nods
17:46:53 <API> and we are really far from our record of 2:30 hours
17:46:57 <API> so, closing the meeting?
17:47:06 * API yes yes
17:47:09 <joanie> yeah, close it
17:47:11 <API> #endmeeting