1 07:10 <@API> well 10 minutes over time
   2 07:10 <@API> just enough waiting for people, so lets start
   3 07:10 <@API> 1. Status of current Action Items 
   4 07:11 <@API> Mike will remove the --enable-relocate option from AT-SPI2.
   5 07:11 <@API>     Question: Should a bug be filed about doing the same for AT-SPI? 
   6 07:11 <@API> mgorse, ?
   7 07:11 < mgorse> API: Good point; some sort of bug should be filed at least
   8 07:12 < mgorse> since relocate in at-spi is currently off in git, since we wanted that for 1.32.0
   9 07:12 ::: tbsaunde [~tbsaunde@GHC25.GHC.ANDREW.CMU.EDU] joined #a11y-meeting
  10 07:12 < mgorse> I think that making it always relocate would make sense
  11 07:13 <@API> mgorse, and about at-spi2?
  12 07:13 <@API> I mean, was it removed or at least 
  13 07:13 <@API> a bug created (if not used the gtk_path one)?
  14 07:13 < mgorse> well, either that or just not have the option. I guess either way could work really
  15 07:14 < mgorse> So far I've removed the option from AT-SPI2, although I haven't removed the code to support for AT-SPI1 from being relocated
  16 07:14 <@API> ok, so I guess that the update in this point is
  17 07:14 <@API> at-spi2 relocate was removed
  18 07:14 <@API> what to do  on at-spi1 is still pending
  19 07:14 <@API> right?
  20 07:14 < mgorse> yeah
  21 07:15 <@API> ok, thanks
  22 07:15 <@joanie> Are we going to determine it now?
  23 07:15 <@API> well, mike said
  24 07:15 <@API> <mgorse> API: Good point; some sort of bug should be filed at leas
  25 07:16 < mgorse> Come to think of it, people don't seem to be using the option and/or have problems trying to use it, so maybe removing the option altogether makes sense after all
  26 07:16 <@API> so I guess that the action here is create the bug, and then decide
  27 07:16  >>> joanie jots down the action
  28 07:16 <@joanie> mgorse: you'll take care of that?
  29 07:16 < mgorse> yeah
  30 07:16 <@joanie> Thanks!
  31 07:16 <@API> ok, so next action to review
  32 07:16 <@API> Joanie will put LibreOffice on her to-do list. In particular: 
  33 07:17 <@API> well, this is somewhat vague
  34 07:17 <@joanie> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg05025.html
  35 07:17 <@API> so I guess that yes, libreoffice is in the todo
  36 07:17 <@API> joanie TODO I mean
  37 07:17 <@joanie> So that's my asking what the deal is
  38 07:17 <@joanie> a couple of responses of interest
  39 07:17 <@joanie> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg05034.html
  40 07:18 <@joanie> Vague, but it sounds like they'll take fixes from OOo
  41 07:18 <@joanie> And Michael Meeks responded once or twice
  42 07:18 <@joanie> and the response I'm looking for I'm not seeing
  43 07:18 <@joanie> one moment
  44 07:18 <@joanie> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg05040.html
  45 07:19 <@joanie> I had no idea he was the author of 50% of the atk bridge in vcl
  46 07:19 <@joanie> so that's pretty cool
  47 07:19 <@joanie> though he did get in another push for "submit patches" ;-)
  48 07:19 <@joanie> I've since subscribed to the dev list
  49 07:19 <@joanie> I may try to hack a solution for the bug I filed back in november
  50 07:19 <@API> authour of the atk bridge in vcl?
  51 07:20 <@API> vcl?
  52 07:20 <@joanie> not so much because I have spare time
  53 07:20 <@joanie> OOo toolkit
  54 07:20 <@joanie> Clutter is to Cally as OOo/LO is to VCL
  55 07:20 <@joanie> well, VCL ain't a11y
  56 07:20 <@joanie> but ... 
  57 07:20 <@API> ah ok
  58 07:20 <@joanie> Firefox is to Gecko as OOo/LO is to VCL
  59 07:20 <@joanie> that's more accurate
  60 07:20 <@joanie> sorry, 07:00 
  61 07:21 <@API> well, he said that, and it is awesome
  62 07:21 <@joanie> anyhoo, I plan to stick around, raise bugs more publicly
  63 07:21 <@API> but you question is more about
  64 07:21 <@joanie> and stay on Michael's radar
  65 07:21 <@API> "will someone work on that"
  66 07:21 <@joanie> ;-)
  67 07:21 <@API> that 
  68 07:21 <@API> "have someone experience on?"
  69 07:22 <@API> but anyway, I guess that this means that the action item is going well
  70 07:22 <@joanie> I'm thinking I'll respond to him saying "awesome, can someone look at this crasher bug I filed in Nov since I'm crazy-busy"
  71 07:22 <@API> at least on the part of getting information
  72 07:22 <@joanie> lol
  73 07:22 <@joanie> yeah
  74 07:23 <@joanie> I'm still on it action-item wize
  75 07:23 <@API> so next action item:
  76 07:24 <@API> We should add organized testing to the GNOME Accessibility Team's roadmap with the aim of it being like the Fedora Testing Days in terms of the approach. 
  77 07:24 <@API> I guess that in this case his status is
  78 07:24 <@joanie> Oh I forgot about that (in prepping for this meeting)
  79 07:24 <@API> zero 
  80 07:24 <@joanie> But I did it
  81 07:24 <@joanie> wtf
  82 07:24 <@API> awesome
  83 07:24 <@joanie> lemme find the link
  84 07:24 <@joanie> http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Roadmap#Implement_.22Testing_Days.22_for_GNOME_Accessibility
  85 07:25 <@joanie> Little faith in me you have API :-P
  86 07:25 <@API> nothing personal, is just little faith in the human being in genera
  87 07:25 <@API> l
  88 07:25 <@joanie> lol
  89 07:26 <@API> in fact as this was suggested by fer
  90 07:26 <@API> I though that implicitly was a "fer task"
  91 07:26 <@joanie> But I was the one who said "let's put it on the roadmap"
  92 07:26 <@joanie> So I assumed it was mine
  93 07:26 <@joanie> anyhoo, it's fricken done
  94 07:26 <@API> well, yes now it is on the roadmap
  95 07:26 <@joanie> that was the AI
  96 07:27 <@joanie> ;-)
  97 07:27 <@API> my question was more like "have someone volunteer to work on it"?
  98 07:27 <@joanie> someone else (like Fer) can take that on
  99 07:27 <@joanie> I don't see it in my future personally
 100 07:27 <@joanie> even after gnome3, I plan to take on Student contributors
 101 07:27 <@joanie> so I anticipate continuing to be swamped
 102 07:28 <@joanie> (hey! Maybe students can get involved with testing!)
 103 07:28 <@joanie> but topic for another time and meeting
 104 07:28 <@API> I agree
 105 07:29 <@API> going fast on the "rolled over" section at the meeting agenda
 106 07:29 <@API> yes, I still have pending send a general mail about the atk hackfest
 107 07:29  >>> joanie laughs and accuses API of being a human being
 108 07:29 <@API> that would be also a reminder to the next point "people who needs funding should start to ping the travel committe"
 109 07:29 <@joanie> I need to do that myself
 110 07:30 <@joanie> and CSUN
 111 07:30 <@API> Joanie will investigate who controls the GNOME a11y paypal donations account and draft a page for the wiki. 
 112 07:30 <@joanie> Yeah
 113 07:30 <@API> and this is "in progress" mode
 114 07:30 <@joanie> so on that....
 115 07:30 <@API> AFAIK
 116 07:30 <@joanie> I had emailed Brian Cameron and Germán with some basic questions and to get the "go ahead".
 117 07:30 <@joanie> I honestly figured I'd be given both the answers and the go-ahead. Instead I was told that Board needs to discuss it.
 118 07:30 <@joanie> <snark>Proving once again that we have little actual authority/control of our own destiny.</snark>
 119 07:31 <@joanie> So I've emailed the board-list and am now waiting to hear back.
 120 07:31 <@joanie> btw
 121 07:31 <@joanie> you skipped one of your AIs
 122 07:31 <@joanie> Funding for Atk Hackfest?
 123 07:32 <@API> ah, well yes
 124 07:32 <@API> you mentioned that because you started to talk about the Board?
 125 07:32 <@API> in this case I think that it doesn't make sense
 126 07:32 <@joanie> huh?
 127 07:33 <@API> after all, the Foundation approved a a11y budget
 128 07:33 <@API> that include a hackfest
 129 07:33 <@API> so I think that we shouldn't ask them more money
 130 07:33 <@joanie> (I mentioned it because you skipped it)
 131 07:33 <@API> ah ok
 132 07:33 <@API> well, yes, but not on purpose
 133 07:33 <@API> sooo
 134 07:33 <@API> Foundation discarded
 135 07:33 <@joanie> I know
 136 07:33 <@joanie> but....
 137 07:33 <@joanie> hold on
 138 07:34 <@joanie> I thought that action item was about OTHER sources
 139 07:34 <@API> I have been talking with a student group here in Coruña
 140 07:34 <@joanie> like that local user group
 141 07:34 <@joanie> exactly
 142 07:34 <@API> they are receptive, although the thing is somewhat stopped
 143 07:34 <@API> I will talk with them again
 144 07:34 <@joanie> cool
 145 07:34 <@joanie> and to be sure (related item)
 146 07:34 <@joanie> The dates are set in stone?
 147 07:34 <@API> as far as I remember that means some hundreds euros
 148 07:35 <@joanie> I can purchase tickets
 149 07:35 <@API> well, yes, we already concluded that
 150 07:35 <@joanie> hundreds of Euros won't hurt
 151 07:35 <@joanie> I'm just triple-checking
 152 07:35 <@API> from now
 153 07:35 <@API> if someone can't go to the hackfest
 154 07:35 <@API> that would be classified
 155 07:35 <@API> as "unexpected"
 156 07:36  >>> joanie nods
 157 07:36 <@API> joanie, you were thinking in other sources of money?
 158 07:36 <@joanie> I don't have any specific sources in mind
 159 07:36 <@joanie> I was merely confused when your answer was to not ask the Foundation
 160 07:36 <@joanie> since I didn't think that was the point of the AI
 161 07:38 <@API> ok
 162 07:38 <@API> so item reviewed
 163 07:38 <@API> forty minutes over time, and we just reviewed past actions
 164 07:38 <@joanie> Q4s
 165 07:39 <@API> it is like live on the past...
 166 07:39 <@joanie> lol
 167 07:39 <@API> argh
 168 07:39 <@API> yeah
 169 07:39 <@API> I also need to do the Q4 thingie ...
 170 07:39 <@joanie> as do I
 171 07:39 <@API> someone knows the deadline?
 172 07:39 <@joanie> we're not the only people late
 173 07:39 <@joanie> hold on
 174 07:39 <@joanie> it was a long time ago officially
 175 07:39 <@joanie> but....
 176 07:39 <@joanie> http://live.gnome.org/action/subscribe/GnomeMarketing/QuarterlyReports/2010/Q4
 177 07:40 <@joanie> My typical behavior is to panic once Brian Cameron submits his Board report
 178 07:40 < mgorse> right. I need to do that, too. Keep forgetting.
 179 07:40 <@joanie> because it's not a Q4 without a Board report
 180 07:40 <@joanie> (even though it's not in the bulleted list)
 181 07:40 <@joanie> So until there's a Board report, the threat level is Orange
 182 07:40 <@joanie> BUT
 183 07:40 <@joanie> I plan to write the Orca Q4 this weekend
 184 07:41 <@joanie> if you all could do the same
 185 07:41 <@joanie> then I will draft our team summary
 186 07:41 <@joanie> and get API's review
 187 07:41 <@API> well, I guess that it is worth
 188 07:41 <@joanie> it would be nice to have this done by Monday or Tuesday
 189 07:41 <@API> to send a mail to the list
 190 07:41 <@joanie> Well, three of the key reports which are missing
 191 07:41 <@joanie> belong to us
 192 07:41 <@joanie> ;-)
 193 07:41 <@joanie> actually, and a fourth
 194 07:42 <@joanie> danigm: Evince a11y report please
 195 07:42 <@joanie> ;-)
 196 07:42 <@joanie> there
 197 07:43 < danigm> joanie: ...
 198 07:43 <@joanie> yessir?
 199 07:43 < danigm> ok, I'll do it
 200 07:43 <@joanie> super thanks!!
 201 07:43 <@API> well, just 15 minutes till the end
 202 07:43 <@API> lets finish the past actions items
 203 07:45 <@API> 3 .Who is testing the GNOME 3.0 stack? 
 204 07:45 <@API> well I added that item
 205 07:45 <@API> and I know that it is really related with the other testing thing
 206 07:45 <@API> but this is not focused to a formal testing
 207 07:45 <@joanie> Well, it is and it's not. We all should be testing
 208 07:45 <@API> and more to
 209 07:45 <@API> are we testing GNOME 3.0?
 210 07:46 <@API> although probably the problem is that right now it is hard to get a "pure" GNOME 3.0 environment
 211 07:46 <@joanie> Yeah
 212 07:47 <@joanie> I'm finding that even with things like introspection
 213 07:47 <@joanie> I seem to have things conflicting
 214 07:47 <@joanie> so the Orca introspection work is largely theoretical
 215 07:47 <@joanie> (i.e. officially it *should* work. I hope it does.)
 216 07:47 <@joanie> :-/
 217 07:48 <@API> that means that you are working on the introspection move for orca?
 218 07:48 <@joanie> oh hell, yeah
 219 07:48 <@joanie> ;-)
 220 07:48 <@joanie> I'm totally separating out the gui
 221 07:48 <@joanie> with wrappers
 222 07:48 <@joanie> we will support both pygtk and pygi
 223 07:48 <@joanie> gtk2 and gtk3
 224 07:48 <@joanie> and I'm even going to at a proof-of-concept Qt4 wrapper
 225 07:49 <@joanie> it's pretty cool
 226 07:49 <@API> awesome
 227 07:49 <@joanie> it's also why I'm behind on my AIs (she says bringing focus back to the topics)
 228 07:49 <@joanie> ;-)
 229 07:49 <@API> I think that this is included on "Other GNOME 3.0 updates "
 230 07:49 <@joanie> oh yay!
 231 07:49 <@joanie> :-)
 232 07:49 <@API> so going on with that ...
 233 07:49 <@joanie> thanks for the slack cutting
 234 07:50 <@API> other gnome 3 updates related with orca?
 235 07:50 <@joanie> Well, we're doing tons of stuff
 236 07:50 <@joanie> but official gnome-3 specific.... I think that introspection work is the key
 237 07:51 <@joanie> WebKitGtk support is coming along nicely too
 238 07:51 <@joanie> I've been testing with Yelp 3.
 239 07:51 <@joanie> we need a few more fixes (which I think just got committed by Mario)
 240 07:51 <@joanie> and I pinged you yesterday about that shell selection stuff
 241 07:52 <@API> yeah ..... slot time, slot time
 242 07:52 <@API> sorry
 243 07:53 <@API> well, mgorse any gnome 3 related update?
 244 07:54 < mgorse> Not really other than having fixed the bugs that some RH people found (ie, the relocate bit and another crasher) since the las tAAT-SPI release
 245 07:54 <@API> ok, thanks
 246 07:55 <@API> danigm, ?
 247 07:56 < danigm> API: what?
 248 07:56 <@API> danigm, any gnome 3 related update from your side?
 249 07:58 < danigm> nope, I found a bug in gailtextbuffer just after gtk3 release and send a patch, but I don't know if it's "gnome 3" related
 250 07:58 <@joanie> danigm: well, what about caret navigation
 251 07:59 <@joanie> i.e. your evince work
 252 07:59 <@joanie> that's gnome 3
 253 07:59 <@joanie> :-)
 254 07:59 < danigm> joanie: waiting for patch revision
 255 07:59 < danigm> patchs are sended
 256 07:59 <@API> ok, thanks
 257 08:00 <@API> well, so to finish the meeting
 258 08:00 <@API> and on miscellaneous time
 259 08:00 <@API> Lets define "Miscellaneous Time" 
 260 08:00 <@API> this is just a little complaint from my side
 261 08:00 <@API> a reminder in fact
 262 08:00 <@API> a reminder to the people
 263 08:00 <@API> as all are invited to add items to the meeting
 264 08:00 <@API> I have the feeling that a lot of people
 265 08:00 <@API> avoid that
 266 08:01 <@joanie> well, after writing the minutes from last week in which miscellaneous time was a 30 minute long discussion, it's a complaint I share.
 267 08:01 <@API> and just start to talk
 268 08:01 <@API> on miscellaneous time
 269 08:01 <@API> hmm
 270 08:01 <@API> joanie, 
 271 08:01 <@API> I had the feeling that in the last meeting
 272 08:01 <@API> was 30 minute longer because the last "official" item on the meeting
 273 08:01  >>> API checking
 274 08:01 <@joanie> well, it was added
 275 08:01 <@joanie> but at the last minute
 276 08:02 <@joanie> as a "if we have time"
 277 08:02 <@joanie> so I guess it's related to the issue, but not the same
 278 08:02 <@joanie> i.e. if your topic is important
 279 08:02 <@API> you are talking about the aria or the testing item=
 280 08:02 <@API> ?
 281 08:02 <@joanie> don't say it's not and downplay it
 282 08:02 <@joanie> yup
 283 08:02 <@API> yup?
 284 08:02 <@API> you are talking about the aria or the testing item?
 285 08:02 <@joanie> yes
 286 08:02 <@joanie> to the aria
 287 08:03 <@joanie> aka the discussion that went on for 30 minutes
 288 08:03 <@API> well, in summary
 289 08:03 <@API> miscellaneous time
 290 08:03 <@API> if just for last and *short* items
 291 08:03 <@API> not included on the agenda
 292 08:04 <@API> if anyone want
 293 08:04 <@API> a real item
 294 08:04 <@API> please edit the agenda during the week
 295 08:04 <@API> well, and now
 296 08:04 <@API> after this comment
 297 08:04 <@API> lets start the real miscellaneous time
 298 08:04  >>> joanie laughs
 299 08:04 <@API> someone want to add something to the meeting?
 300 08:08 <@API> well, 5 minutes are just enough
 301 08:08 <@API> meeting over!