PWE 2019-04-04 -- 04 Apr 2019

<scribe> scribenick: jeff

<scribe> chair: Tzviya

TS: Goal today is to address; merge PRs

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

TS: lots of discussion, some easy to merge

JB: I've had less time than usual to read the PRs

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

TS: PR 27 is relatively minor
... reduce repetition
... define acceptable behavior
... change sentence to bullet list
... Comments?

All: Looks fine to me

TS: I will incorporate and merge

JB: No content change?

TS: Slight. Reduce repetition.

JB: I want to see wording change.
... +1 as a bulleted list

TS: "PWECG agrees" noted.

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

TS: Is language acceptable to merge?
... Nigel proposed shifting Ombuddy to Ombudsperson
... OK?
... change violations to concerns

Vlad: The other way around

TS: I will merge later today

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/33

TS: For 33, minor modifications: transparency, ...
... for reporting
... Chaals is proposing changing my language
... changing paragraph in reporting to bullet list.

JB: Nigel is talking about keeping records on this thread

TS: Not yet discussed; I will open an additional issue.

<wendyreid> jeff: To Judy's point, it is sometimes difficult to see what we're looking at when there's a long thread. Is there a simpler way to deal with that? I feel her pain

TS: That's why I am opening separate issues
... issues evolve into other issues
... so we need to close these off and introduce new issues

JB: Makes it hard to give a quick reply
... we'll need to see how it all fits together

TS: Understand the difficulty of getting a broad perspective

<Ralph> s/organzation/organization

TS: I will open new issue about confidentiality
... and clarify that is not resolved

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/35

TS: Minor edit of "intro" and "respect"

<tzviya> Respect. We are a large community of people who are passionate about our work, sometimes holding strong opinions beliefs. We strive to deal with each other with courtesy, respect, and dignity at all times. Misunderstandings and disagreements do happen. When conflicts arise, we are expected to resolve them maintaining that courtesy, respect, and dignity, even when emotions are heightened.

TS: revised language to definition of respect
... Nigel has supplied some feedback

<Judy> w/strive/are committed to/ ?

<wendyreid> jeff: This looks good, I wonder whether the word "strive" is too weak? My feeling is that something like "insist" is better

<Rachel> +1 to commit

<Ralph> +1 "committed to"

<wendyreid> tzviya: I like committed to as well

<wendyreid> +1

<Rachel> +1

TS: Do we agree to this PR as amended (w committed to)?

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/36

TS: PR #36 takes language from PWETF and Immersive CoC
... similarities and differences
... we come from different backgrounds

<Ralph> [s/standard of behavior/standards of behavior/]

TS: not huge change, but needs to be carefully coordinated
... people need time to ponder

<wendyreid> jeff: We've been having major conversations about whether we need to have a complete rewrite to adopt the Immersive Web CoC

TS: We agree to adopt their tone

<wendyreid> ... I wonder why we're getting into the minutiae when we could have the whole

TS: I am taking it piecemeal because it is easier in ReSpec
... but, yes, weird
... but adding unaccceptable before addressing acceptable is leading in the right way

WR: +1 TS
... easier to read smaller chunked up PRs

<Ralph> +1 modular chunks to review

RS: Still, useful to have a road map of all that we want to bring in.

Vlad: Agreement that two sections with acceptable behaviors and good citizen expectations are critical

TS: Agree with Vlad
... also, not ad hoc - this is organized

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/master/ReferencesAndResources.md

TS: and will systematically get all of this in
... back to PR #36

<Ralph> [[Respect people’s right to privacy and confidentiality. ]]

RS: Since the text mentions personal space,
... ^^ could add personal space

TS: We may need to flag confidentiality again

Vlad: Multiple parts that were merged in
... Privacy and confidentiality doesn't necessarily fit with appreciating differences
... maybe break into separate non-bundled sections.

TS: So, move privacy and confidentially elsewhere

Vlad: Or split into a separate paragraph

RS: Start a new bullet

Vlad: Use the same approach but with different paragraphs to deal with different concepts

TS: For now, to keep the topic clean, I'll drop the sentence and open a new issue

JB: But don't lose it.

TS: Will not be lost
... I will open a new issue on confidentiality and privacy

<Ralph> [I concur with Judy that it not get lost]

RS: I'd prefer keeping this, but adding a new issue to split it

Vlad: Agreed.

TS: Can you raise an issue to address privacy and confidentiality

Vlad: Sure. I'll also look for other opportunities

<Ralph> +1, Vlad

TS: We'll merge this PR pending the raising of the issue

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/37

TS: This one adds a section on unacceptable behavior.

<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/37.html

TS: Nigel and Ada had some discussion about particular wording
... Nigel had concerns about wording
... Ada had some ideas
... discussion on github

<wendyreid> jeff: Just to organize this in order of how we address this. I propose we first discuss and agree that we want an unacceptable behaviour section

<wendyreid> ... once we agree we can put this in

<wendyreid> ... and then if people have changes to make to the text, we can log those as issues

Vlad: The big picture - telling them behaviours that are not tolerated is better than - "do this or do that"
... will help ombuddies
... specific individual entries is a different issue
... so to answer Jeff's question - this is the right approach

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask a question

JB: Vlad, are you saying this is an improvement?

Vlad: Yes. Effective to list a specific behavior as unacceptable.

<Ralph> [my taste would prefer to see the "Expected" section before the "Unacceptable" section]

JB: Need better segue between opening paragraph and list
... list is comprehensive

<Rachel> +1 to a clearer transition

JB: but includes some newer terms that more people may be unfamiliar with
... like "misgendering"
... may need more explanation (e.g. dog-whistles and outing and microaggression)

<Ralph> [any word that needs quotation should also be explained]\

JB: are these from the "geek feminism"

TS: I agree about the transition, but this is a wip
... Nigel and Ada are addressing some of the jargon issues
... "geek feminism" is a less international environment
... agree we need the clarity
... some have said they have been respectful

RC: Agree with Judy
... stay away from being too descriptive

<wendyreid> +1 Rachel

TS: I suggest we wrap up this issue

<Ralph> +1 to add this section (possibly in a different order)

TS: Do we have general consensus to add this section to the CEPC

<Rachel> +1 to add it with continued updating

+1 and I think it should be represented as such at the AC meeting

JB: I think it needs a bunch more work
... to clarify a previous comment
... this list is helpful to make people comfortable
... my only concern was that we explain them well

<Rachel> +1 Judy

TS: I propose we hold off on merge since it needs polish

JB: People are supportive, but put in disclaimer that it is a wip

<Ralph> +1 work in progress

TS: Will do

Ralph: Nigel's collaboration with Ada Rose is useful
... might move some of the information

<Vlad> +1 on having the "Unacceptable Behavior" section. List of things in that section can be adjusted, and editorial review is definitely needed to improve wording, but the section itself is a major positive shift in how we communicate via CEPC

JB: To recap, this will be "in" but with a general disclaimer as well as a specific disclaimer

Vlad: +1 to Judy - W3C is international organization
... need to keep it in mind
... mindful about what we say
... diverse environment; cultural background
... but code should not be "activist movement"
... our main concept should be equality
... gender, racial, any other level

TS: Yeah, we are doing a good job

JB: It may be hard to separate
... differences about what is an equality issue

<tzviya> +1 to judy

JB: LGBTQ equality is radical in some countries
... so we need to simply be conscious of what we are doing and how we are saying it
... comment if you have concerns.

TS: Ombuddies next time?
... talk at AC
... two minutes about AC input
... slides are available

<wendyreid> jeff: If the unacceptable behaviour section is not mentioned in your slides, it is worth doing

Jeff: Should add our new decisions about unacceptable behavior

TS: Next meeting on 9 May at same time.

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment about next time

<wendyreid> jeff: I just wanted to share, I had a recent CEPC inquiry, chairs were complaining about the behaviour of a participant and wanted guidance

<wendyreid> ... it doesn't have a section for the role of chairs

<wendyreid> ... I raised an issue to look at this, what guidance do we want to give chairs

TS: Yes, came up at TPAC discussion
... need to add a section on roles
... I was also contacted
... I mentioned they could contact ombudsperson

JB: We need chair training
... previously handled by domains

TS: See you in Quebec

[adjourned]

- DRAFT -

PWE 2019-04-04

04 Apr 2019

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output