PWE -- 09 May 2019

<scribe> scribenick: Ralph

CEPC refresh timeline

Tzviya: I spoke at the AC meeting about a proposal to send an update of CEPC in June
... over the next few weeks I plan to do some significant editing
... I welcome your input
... there have been some significant in the past few weeks that suggest a refresh is needed
... perhaps Jeff can fill us in

Jeff: over the past several weeks I have see circumstances in various groups where there were behaviors that were difficult to manage
... in each of those caess the Team Contact and the chairs were uncertain what to do
... in our previous CG call we talked about the need for better guidance for people on what to actually do
... CEPC talks about approaching Ombuds

<jeff> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/41

Jeff: but nowhere do we say what to do when situations start, what to do when situations escalate, what to do when attempst at de-escalation fails
... I raised #41 to discuss this
... it's important that we address what to do day-to-day, what to do in an "emergency", what is an "emergency"

Judy: #41 doesn't have a lot of detail
... it sounds like the question is "what to do in an urgent situation anywhere"
... are we assuming every chair might have a unique role?
... what if the issue is the chair themself?
... let's not presume to annoint some special class [of individual]
... is the issue that there should be an "urgent procedure"?

Jeff: I'll add to the issue to more fully characterize its dimensions

Tzviya: people's first point of contact is often a chair
... I think it might be a good idea to propose chair training to highlight some of the aspects of the (not yet complete) CEPC revision
... we also have an unresolved task to revise the escalation process that's in a separate document
... it sounds as though we need a task force to work on "emergency situations"

<Ralph> +1

Judy: it sounds like this should move forward urgently

Jeff: I've now added my comments to #41
... we do need to deal with emergency situations but we also need a corpus of information on how to deal with any situation
... we can prevent some situations from escalating if we act quickly

Vlad: we had proposed text to advise chairs and team contacts
... we could copy that
... chairs and t.c.s are often the first point of contact so giving them advise would be a good thing

<tzviya> "Be Active: Promote positive behaviors in our community. Take action to bring the discussion back to a more civil level whenever inappropriate behaviors are observed, especially if you are in a leadership position (serving as a Team contact, a group chair, W3C management, Advisory Board, etc.)."

Vlad: see the "Be Active" section

Tzviya: this text does not actually tell people in leadership positions what to do
... "be active" is still a bit vague

Vlad: yes, but at least this language says that chairs should act and not just be passive observers

Tzviya: I've been doing some research on actionable steps we can put in

Jeff: being active and promoting positive behaviors is more than we currently have and therefore a useful addition
... what happens is that a situation occurs and the chairs says "that's not appropriate"
... "be active" tells them they *should* do that
... when there is pushback of the form "who are you to tell me this?" there's nothing documented to show

Judy: the MIT sexual harrassment training covers several roles, including the "bystander" role
... I thought some of the way they approached this role was good
... not just being passive but saying something
... reminding people to take a responsible role is helpful; some don't start from such a place
... also showing where expectations are documented is sometimes sufficient
... I support empowering people to step in and giving guidance on what to say

Tzviya: I do like the idea of information for bystanders
... I've been talking with Amy Dickens who researches codes of conduct for Samsung
... she suggests adding the ability to report behavior anonymously, reporting to a live person,
... and include somewhere in the document how we respond to CEPC violations
... this demonstrates that we take violations seriously

<tzviya> s/Dickison/Dickens

Tzviya: I will need to work with the Team to set things up if we agree to steps
... some of the items are more urgent
... and will follow up with Jeff on who can implement processes

Judy: there were some draft procedures
... are you starting from scratch?

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

Tzviya: there's a proposal ^^ to revise our existing processes; I intend to update this document
... and welcome help

Judy: I'll be happy to look at it

Tzviya: the proposed timeline is to finish CEPC update in June and update the process later

Jeff: there's a change to how we characterize PWE ala the Immersive Web text
... is that the June target?

Tzviya: I have some pull requests to propose

Jeff: on how we characterize CEPC, that's a big change
... we should not assume that a draft sitting in GitHub will get review without an email reminder

Tzviya: I will do that; I have not yet completed change proposals for the "expected behaviors" section

Jeff: before we finalize it would make sense to share a draft with the Diversity and Inclusion CG
... when you feel the draft is reasonably stable I'd also like W3M to review it
... I'd like a schedule between now and June

Tzviya: June is my target to call for review
... I agree with circulating it to all those groups
... I do not yet have proposals on documenting procedures for chairs and others in leadership positions
... I'd like to talk with Jeff and Wendy more about that

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

Review open pull requests on CEPC

Tzviya: skipping #33 until I check back with Charles on what exactly he meant

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/46

Adjustment to Patronizing language section #46

Tzviya: this is about whether we should describe what "patronizing language" is
... the recommendation from others who have experience with codes of conduct is that we keep the language brief

Vlad: Nigel proposed two versions of changes
... I supported the version that did not have the "for example..." part
... remove the example
... replace it with text that describes the expected behavior

Jeff: some thoughts about communication style
... this tends to be very individual and personal
... different people have different styles; what is perfectly normal to one person may be unwelcome to another person
... this may be sensitive but also may be short of a CEPC violation
... there might be room for a discussion about different behaviors that we need to be sensitive to that might be deeply offensive to others
... that don't rise to the level of "violation" but still are undesirable

Tzviya: good characterization
... the particular point of #46 [is exemplified by] the example phrase "Well, actually..."

Judy: I think this thread is about establishing a climate in a group
... and patterns of language that indicate someone is being regularly dismissed
... the particular point of #46 [may be exemplified by] the example phrase "Well, actuallyTzviya:"\
... that is why people wanted this specific example included

Vlad: my only concern is about where this language is best placed
... I proposed that it be placed in "expected behavior"
... it's normal that people for whom English is a second language that they resort to such words as fillers
... the example should acknowledge that sometimes these words are just fillers

Tzviya: I expect "expected behaviors" will be a bit broader
... I am comfortable leaving this open for today
... and come back to this with the "be aware" section

Jeff: perhaps the section on behavior could remain general and then note that cultural differences cause people to receive things in different ways that may not have been what was intended
... in the community section put examples of phrases that individuals have found offensive
... to help people learn what sorts of things have been offensive to others

Tzviya: I think what goes into the Code all needs to be normative

<Vlad> +1 to what Tzviya has just said

Judy: we can leave the examples to discussion sections in training
... which leaves room for people to state what is a trigger and for others to reply "that's not the way I meant it"

Tzviya: let's keep this in mind for the Expected Behavior section

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/49

Tzviya: at some point this particular "Well, actually..." phrase will be highlighted

<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/49/25d7877...10c0474.html

Tzviya: #49
... see the diff ^^
... the new section is "Be inclusive and Promote Diversity"

Vlad: I agree with both parts of this pull request
... but the deletion is because we already cover those parts elsewhere
... the addition is very useful by itself

Tzviya: yes; I just happened to do both at the same time

Vlad: and I agree with both

Jeff: Sectoin 3 is the Code, Section 4 is Reporting
... "reporting to an ombudsperson" misses the point; what should Team Contacts and Chairs do when they observe something
... the [first] report probably is not to an Ombuds; it would be to the chair or T.C.

Tzivya: the task Jeff and I have is to decide what goes in Reporting and what goes in Procedures document

<tzviya> scribe: tzviya

Ralph: It seems rough to begin this section with "seek diverse...". Recommend changing to "Accept diverse..."

Judy: please explain

Ralph: It is appropriate advice to those leading the conversation but perhaps not for all.

Judy: I don't think that people should just accept. I think we should push people to seek.

Ralph: I retract my suggestion

<scribe> scribe: Ralph

Judy: there are two words that jump out as more political
... "avoid creating systems or technologies that disenfranchies or oppress people"
... the following sentence is ok

<Vlad> +1 to Judy's comment

Judy: "disenfranchise and oppress" sound like layering a political element that might confuse the more factual aspects of inclusion
... the second part of this came from the ACM Code of Conduct
... we could end after @@
... or @@2

Tzviya: sounds good

<Judy> [jb: avoid... "that may cause barriers"

<Judy> [jb: avoid... "that may cause barriers"]

<tzviya> I will change disenfranchise or oppress people to "that may cause barriers"

<Vlad> * fingers have bones, tongue doesn't :)

Vlad: some of the pieces in CEPC have not yet been touched; [section 4] is one of those
... we can change that once we're done with the previous sections

Jeff: in Expected Behaviors there is a very good paragraph, #2, "appreciate our similarities and differences ..."
... followed by some bullet points
... this new section on promoting diversity seems to combine those bullets and some specific actions
... "seek diverse perspectives" is an example of what goes in the bulleted list
... other pieces go with the narrative
... we have too many items included in one bullet
... a bullet on being aware of time taken by dominant members of the group is a separate point not exclusively related to diversity
... "technology and practices" may be a third bullet
... I read some sentences [in the context of] previous experience

<Vlad> +1 to Jeff's comment. In addition, we should probably review [again] the "Community Conduct Guidelines" section of the "old draft and see if some of its structure can be reintroduced here (in the "Expected Behavior" section) as well.

Tzviya: I have some more wordsmithing to do

[adjourned]

<tzviya> ok, thanks for scribing Ralph

- DRAFT -

PWE

09 May 2019

Attendees

Contents

CEPC refresh timeline

Review open pull requests on CEPC

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output