<Rachel> scribenick: Rachel

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/20

Review of Ombuddy training docs

<Ralph> scribenick: Ralph

<Rachel> tzviya: I'm going to put Rachel on the spot

#20: ombuddy training

Rachel: I went through two of the documents; Best Practices and Standards of Pratice
... and pulled out what was most relevant for us
... I feel some should definitely be part of our standard of practice; others might need discussion

Jeff: looking at 1.1 and 1.2, I note that our current Ombuds are not in compliance with those
... when we created these positions a couple of years ago we were specifically asked to appoint senior people
... I wasn't in the discussion that led to the original selection of Ombuds
... my impression of how that selection happened is that W3C is a community, not an organization -- so people may have been concerned about having too many levels of indirection
... just my speculation
... we should understand what the original motivation was in the original selection of Ombuds

Tzviya: I think there's some reality to this and we do need to take it into account when choosing the next Ombuds
... just the [senior] titles might dissuade people from approaching someone

Rachel: I don't think we should force people to go to an Ombuddy to handle a concern
... but there should be a path for people who are not comfortable approaching W3M with a concern
... the Ombuds office should exist separately [from management]

Jeff: I'm comfortable with that, just clarifying that there's a difference between having non-W3M Ombuds -- with which I agree -- and saying that W3Mers can't be Ombuds
... on the day we put this into practice we would have to find a whole new set of Ombuds

Tzviya: these documents were meant to give us a set of considerations, not necessarily that we adopt them as-is
... we might not say that W3Mers can't be Ombuds but we should definitely consider that some won't be comfortable approaching a W3Mer
... "what can I do to help myself" is an example of something that is extremely valuable
... at what point might we want to do an overhaul? roll out training?

Jeff: two different questions
... we have to name Ombuds before we can train them
... I suggest we proceed until we've socialized all the proposed changes and have a revised proposal
... where do we stand on issues?

Tzviya: the main goal for Ombuds is to increase the number and the geographical distribution

Jeff: we do need changes, as the current document says the Ombuds are a small group selected by W3M
... to focus on size and training, let's see some pull requests to the document

Tzviya: we also need to recruit more Ombuds
... the idea of an "Ombuds Chair" was raised as well
... I'll take an action to collect some pull requests to the current document

Jeff: it's ok to defer some changes to a future revision but it's a challenge if the CG says it wants to review everything before proposing any changes

PRs on CEPC

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls

Tzviya: some typos that made it in when converting the document to Respec
... #27 might be easy but I'm not sure there are enough at today's meeting for us to decide to accept these
... #28 is a significant change
... it incorporates proposals on how to respond when you make a mistake

Jeff: in "reporting" there's text ...
... I'm not completely comfortable with that wording

Tzviya: I changed it to report to the Ombuds

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/28

[[
Violations of the code of conduct should be reported to a W3C Ombudsperson as outlined in the complementary Procedures document.

]]

Tzviya: I was struggling with the phrase "Violations of the code of conduct"

Jeff: yes; aside from the CEPC thing, looking at the Immersive Web COC as it applies to the WG itself, I'm wondering if W3C is comfortable with the reporting structure that WG has set up for itself
... it seems to me that this should be discussed in this CG
... has it been raised as an issue?

Tzvyia: no, but we can discuss it
... I did try to come up with something better than "violations" as I felt this is a little abrubpt
... something might not be a "violation"; people need to be comfortable approaching an Ombuds

Jeff: "perceived violation"
... another point: "unacceptable behavior"
... there's a list in CEPC; would we replace that list?

Tzviya: there's another pull request that should be discussed; I'm open to feedback

Jeff: it's a good idea to modernize our list
... I like a lot of the proposed additions but words are important and I hope this would get careful review

Tzviya: things like bullying are not covered in the current CEPC

Jeff: I appreciate the desire to get Ombuddys done but to the extent that the Immwersive Web list of offensive behaviors illustrates how dated our current CEPC list is, I'd be concerned if we don't propose to update it in the first rev

Tzviya: I do intend to get to it
... and am happy for assistance

Behavioral norms

Tzviya: considering how much work there is to do on Ombuddy and CEPC pull requests, I think this will have to be deferred
... this will be a difficult document to put together but it would also be useful to have
... "how to behave" is a delicate area; e.g. people sending lots of email on a single topic

Rachel: perhaps we could reframe as "international business etiquette" guide
... less dydactic and more informational
... could include things that many of us alreadi know
... and also introduce areas in which people do not realize they are being annoying

<jeff> +1 to friendly non didactic documents that teach social skills, rather than oppressive rules that MUST be followed

Rachel: such as how to accept a business card
... and not sending 6 emails in a short time on a thread

Tzviya: good ideas
... but I don't have time to work on this right now

Immersive Web COC

Jeff: as an extension of what we have, I don't have issues; as long as it doesn't conflict
... I do find it strange that if we've concluded that the Ombuds are not W3M then how does this apply at the next level to Chairs?
... after we remove W3M then we'll need additional text on how to bring in W3M or the Director
... I wonder if we need a similar two-stage thing here
... how do you report something when you're not comfortable going to the chairs?
... and then how does the Ombuddy bring in the chairs if necessary?

Immersive Web Working Group Code of Conduct

Tzviya: at TPAC it was identified that chairs need more guidance
... and people will go to the chairs when there is an issue

Jeff: that's appropriate
... and even if W3M are not Ombuds then it is still appropriate for someone to approach a W3Mer

Tzviya: we haven't concluded that we don't want W3Mers to be Ombuddies
... that is only a recommendation in one of the documents Rachel reviewed

Jeff: ok; in my view the Ombuds are facilitators
... if the purpose of an Ombuds is to be a safe way to raise an issue to someone in authority then we shouldn't discourage anyone from going directly to someone in authority

Tzviya: people will go to whomever they are comfortable approaching
... the point of the Ombuds training is to provide it to as many people as possible
... first to the group formally identified as Ombuds

Jeff: thinking more about this, I withdraw the issue I raised above on the Immersive Web COC
... the current guidelines they published are sufficiently aligned with today's PWE and CEPC that I don't see an issue
... if we change our Code and Procedures we can take another look

Tzviya: so actions are:
... pull requests for revisions to Ombuddys
... and continue with revisions to CEPC

Next Meeting

Tzviya: as of now the next meeting is 14 March at 10am Eastern
... I will send an email to the CG to confirm if that time works

[adjourned]