Positive Work Environment CG -- 07 Mar 2019

<scribe> scribenick: dauwhe

tzviya: can you hear me now?
... let's get started
... sorry i didn't get to all of the edits
... let's go over the existing PRs
... and talk about how to move forward

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

Judy: I have a general question

<Ralph> diff for #28

Judy: of the comments made last year, how much of that was brought into the recent discussion?

tzviya: I don't know if you saw my comment yesterday
... I try to keep PRs small; this is a work in progress
... I haven't gotten to everything yet
... today I'll like to come to consensus on the existing PRs, so we can merge them
... I want to avoid merge conflicts

Judy: thanks--this answered many of my questions

Vlad: I have a Q
... last years effort was a complete rewrite

<Ralph> Tzviya: "...not a complete edit..."

Vlad: to bring it to a different quality standard
... it was a group effort
... I'm uneasy about suggesting particular changes to this
... are we doing editorial improvements, or structural changes?
... the draft from the task force last year, and the text from the PR, both of those documents specified behaviours instead of things to do or not do
... so editorial improvements are not going to get us far

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to briefly clarify my understanding

Judy: when this group resumed with new folks, there had been a decision to take the edits carefully, and make the edits evididence-based

<tzviya> see minutes https://www.w3.org/2018/10/11-pwe-minutes.html#item02

Judy: I'd like tzviya to lead us through the comments on the record

tzviya: as judy said, we discussed this

<Ralph> Consider proposed revisions to CEPC #7

tzviya: no matter how extensive the edits are, it's still an editorial process

<Ralph> [^^ cites Vlad's prior work]

tzviya: and we're working through the revisions you made last year

jeff__: when I read theimmersive web documentation, there's a lot that I like about it
... but I kind of agree with what Vlad is saying, that you dont get from today's language to what's in the immersive web via small edits
... it's a different approach
... tzviya has some time on the agenda

<Ralph> Immersive Web Working Group Code of Conduct

jeff__: I wonder if this discussion about approach should involve more than the people on these calls
... by getting it out to the AC before the AC meeting, and discuss it with the AC. See which approach they like better.
... this high-level issue is something we could engage people in
... some of Rachel's proposals could also get traction at the ac meeting

Vlad: it was a pleasant surprise to see the document for immersive web
... two different groups took the same conceptual approach (Ada Rose Cannon for IW, and PWETF last year)
... there are certain behaviours not tolerated, and some behaviours encouraged

tzviya: we've agreed that's our planned path
... sorry I haven't been able to make all the edits before the meeting

Vlad: would it be possible or recommended to take two docs, one from the task force and one from immerseive web and present them to AC?

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to also think about evidence-backing in terms not only of what people might like, but whatever we know about what might be effective

Judy: one thing I recall from last fall
... was an interest in make this evidence-backed where possible
... there are different trends in how these policies are written
... and research showing some policies weren't effective
... we not only need to know what people like, but what actually works

Rachel: I support what Judy just said--this needs to be evidence-based
... I'm not comfortable with bringing up one old doc and one doc that's in progress, and asking what the AC is comfortable with
... that's not a good voting situation
... We're trying to follow a good process, and determine the right approach for each point
... by the time we hit the AC meeting, it seems unlikely that each of those points will be addressed
... we seem to be rushing
... I love the idea of going to AC and asking for more input and participation

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about evidence

Rachel: but I don't like bringing two docs to the AC, when we have no evidence-based research

<Ralph> [I agree with Rachel that the AC should expect this CG to do more work before asking it questions about multiple documents]

tzviya: I agree with rachel; I don't want to ask the AC to vote on two docs

<tzviya> http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SHStudy/index.htm

tzviya: judy, you shared an article with the group, and you offered to prepare a summary

Judy: I had not read the entire thing, I'd been in a presentation on the findings
... afterwards, one of the folks from the academy shared their slide deck
... I think I can share them
... there were some sections that were particularly relevant, and there were surprises

tzviya: one thing I found helpful about the IW code, is that it was based on existing codes of conduct such as Moz participation guidelines
... and the XOXO code of conduct used in the open source community
... we haven't agreed on what we call evidence
... the fact that these are widely used is useful

<tzviya> https://immersive-web.github.io/homepage/code-of-conduct.html

tzviya: there's likely a reason that they ware widely used
... we haven't really come to a conclusion
... we need some evidence
... there's a feeling that the working in our CoC needs tweaking, because people are uncomfortable
... we need to define better what respect means
... we need more people from the AC to help

Vlad: I did not propose a vote
... to get participation from the AC, we need to bring them something of substance
... we could use the existing work to generate interest from the AC
... as far as evidence-based research, I agree with you
... the document from the task force last year, based on the todo group
... it's 100% follows the todo group
... we did not make it up ourselves
... it was based on the popular and recognized groups in the industry

tzviya: the email discussion is from a list that no longer exists

Vlad: I can provide evidence we viewed different codes, and we chose that one as a prototype

tzviya: in issue 7, it includes references from the email thread and the PDF
... could you add a comment with a link to the todo code of conduct you were working from

Vlad: I'll try to do that
... I'm not sure if that version is still up, I remember getting 404 errors

tzviya: there's still work to do on revising this
... I won't have a document to the AC because the meeting is in a month
... I can report on our general direction
... but we can turn to our work on ombuddies

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

tzviya: although some think that term is unprofessional

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/master/PWE.html

tzviya: I've moved the pwe landing page where this is documented into respec
... but I haven't documented changes yet

<Ralph> [ [Member-only] archives of prior PWE Task Force discussions ]

tzviya: let's go back to issue 20
... judy, thanks for your comments yesterday
... and suggested contacting organizations and asking about conflicts of interest
... w3c is so small that we almost have to have management as ombuddies

Judy: may I clarify my comment?
... I had noticed the comments ralph or rachel brought in
... and jeff had made a comment
... 1.2 might be a conflict with the setup we have
... when we set the contacts for ombuddies
... I heard questions about the designation
... informally, in talking with an IOA member, who's a full time ombuddy
... she said it was important to separate out roles
... the person I spoke with a few months ago said she'd be happy to answer questions
... I could go back to her

tzviya: that would be helpful
... one thing I was trying to document
... is the selection process for ombuds
... and I don't know where to start
... I was thinking of diversity as well as different roles--different hosts etc

Judy: one thing we explored in the past and found pitfalls
... we talked about voting, but that could be awkward
... choosing someone from each host, there needs to be some diversity

tzviya: I'm glad I didn't commit my changes, as there would be flaws
... I can work with you on this offline
... a lot of the tools on these websites are self-help tools
... before they approach a human, they might want to check things
... how to solve a problem themselves, for example
... we could use something like the Columbia University tools
... some of the education/training stuff is out of date

Judy: another thing I looked at, it looked like people were compiling resources
... the question I hear about the existing system is what training do the ombuddies have?
... is there baseline training?
... an answer to that might inspire more confidence

tzviya: absolutely
... Ralph and I have talked about which tools would be useful, and about the training
... and we think we need improved training
... and what money there is to train ombuddies
... any other comments about the documents?
... elsewhere, Charles had recommended being more specific about what people should do when there has been a violation of the code of conduct

nigel: this is related to the wording proposal
... whether it's ok to talk about violations, or merely concerns
... I think it's important to allow people to raise questions about whether a line has been crossed
... to be able to discuss it in an open way

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/28#issuecomment-464038108

<Rachel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/28#issuecomment-470313745

nigel: +1 to being able to raise concerns

tzviya: I had changed the working from violations to concerns in the PR

Judy: +1 for trying to approach this
... a lot of comments involve people being unsure if a violation has occurred
... and they need a trusted, educated sounding board

Vlad: violations of code of conduct is a harsh statement
... I agree with nigel
... my argument with the language is that violations of code of conduct is different than concerns about code of conduct
... concerns about document itself
... we want to say concerns about potential violations of code of conduct
... that's more clear
... "concern about code of conduct' is way too fuzzy

tzviya: I want to make people with any concerns about the code of conduct comfortable with going to an ombuddy

Vlad: but it's not poeple being concerned iwth the code of conduct. It's about being concerned about people violating the code of conduct

Judy: I see vlad's point

<nigel> +1 to Vlad's point

Judy: Rachel and Vlad discussed that
... I hear tzviya saying that she doesn't want to exclude people who are concerned about the code itself
... what about vlad's language, but then add tzviya's point

nigel: I see all those points
... is an ombuddy the right person to go to with a concern about the doc itself?
... but isn't that the role of this group?

<Vlad> What Nigel said!

tzviya: so the proposal is to change it to concerns with violations of the code of conduct

Judy: github has the language

tzviya: the language there works for me
... we have fifteen minutes left
... I'd hoped to merge some of these PRs

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/27

tzviya: let's look at PR #27
... this includes some of the stuff from the version vlad worked on last year
... let's see if we can vote on this PR

<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/27.html

<Ralph> diff

tzviya: I've added a sentence about the goals
... in the abstract, and there are a few adjustments in the introduction that were taken from the work vlad did with others last year

Judy: I can get it by scrolling, and I see a queue

jeff__: organization is misspelled
... and I dont understand the bit about transparency

<nigel> +1 to Jeff's point about the language

tzviya: the transparency I picked up from vlad

Vlad: I don't think it was in my version

Judy: if you were to remove "in moderation" you would have "transparency"
... the tricky thing is that some people are looking for confidentiality
... so you could have a chilling effect
... so you can't just remove "in moderation"

tzviya: I can remove the sentence

jeff__: the notion that we have a goal to ensure that the w3c community is an environment where everyone can participate without fear of harrassement is a worthy goal
... it's more than working group

tzviya: I will work on editing that sentence
... and then ask for another look
... we need to talk about scheduling again
... I'm not available at this time next month due to AB and AC meetings
... I propose to cancel for next month

Judy: it seems like we have momentum
... would the week before be a possibility?

tzviya: I'm available the week before

Judy: what's the date?

jeff__: we have to talk about the time, too
... my guess is that the AB call will be cancelled

tzviya: I need to talk to Angel
... she'll be chair when I'm on leave
... until then we can try this time slot on April 4?

<Judy> [jb: could do april 4th, 10am US EST, by adjusting another meeting]

jeff__: I intend to

tzviya: we could do an hour earlier

jeff__: I have a conflict

Judy: me too

tzviya: this would be 10AM US

Ralph: 14UTC

tzviya: assuming there's no AB meeting that would work

Judy: this gives us a chance to do April, so thanks

tzviya: thanks everyone for your feedback

- DRAFT -

Positive Work Environment CG

07 Mar 2019

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output