<tzviya> meeting: PWE June Call

<scribe> New participants Boaz and Jory

<Ralph> previous meeting record (09-May)

Next steps for CEPC draft and ombuds program (Tzviya, Ada, Jory)

<Ralph> Ada: I'm a developer advocate, co-chair of Immersive Web WG
<Ralph> ... I've written about inclusion in conferences and speak at many, many conferences
<Ralph> Tzviya: Ada will take over as lead editor on the CEPC draft while I am on leave

tzviya going on leave, ada will take over as editor of the CEPC draft

Ada will take it though wide review

Jory from Bocoup who has done lots of work with CoCs will be working on developing the ombuds program

Judy: Judy spoke with Jory about ombuds explorations

they spoke with the international ombuds organisation regarding out sourcing ombuds

they do not allow referral but they do take questions under advisement

Are there organisations that consult about applying the principals, or categories of training for orgs where there may not be explicit formal ombuds.

And will ask for information which is sharable with this group.

Judy, has noticsed that their website contains a fairly streamlined list of principals in a number of languages.

Jory, you had been looking at the training they offer?

Jory, was not on the call

tzviya: this is the work we will take into the fall

<Ralph> International Ombudsman Association

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/53 suggested by nigel

We should also look into Nigel's suggestion of replacing the term ombuds with mediators

<Ralph> [[
<Ralph> What’s in a Name: Ombudsperson, Ombudsman, and Ombuds?
<Ralph> The name “ombudsman” (om budz man) comes from Swedish and literally means “representative.” At the most fundamental level, an ombudsman is one who assists individuals and groups in the resolution of conflicts or concerns.
<Ralph> ]]
<Ralph> -- https://ioa.memberclicks.net/what-is-an-organizational-ombuds

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to note that the definition of Ombudsman on IOA site is sort of the opposite of that

nigel: It may be a too aggressive term suggesting a right and wrong.

Judy: Nigel, I had thought that as well that an ombuds is someone who comes in to solve things. But that is something which they say they don't do they can be a soundboard or clarify issues.

They had found that before W3C had any kind of process these were the things that were required.

Vlad: I've never been able to find an exact definition of ombuds person. So it should be somethign which everyone understands.

tzviya: We can add it to the issue and work on it.

Review and merge open Pull Requests [2] (Tzviya)

Judy: Acknowldge people's concerns.

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

tzviya: going to ask Nigel to take up issue 33

to clarify what the actual requests were

nigel: i'll give it a go

pr 46 will go to ada

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/49
<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/49/25d7877...6d4ff14.html

tzviya: 49 is a big change, vlad noticed a typo
... The new work today is from the task force, it is a lot to read today, feedback is welcome
... welcome jeff

deadline for comments 20th of June for feedback then it will be put out for review

<Ralph> previous meeting record (09-May)

Judy: asks for clarification of what changed

Vlad: change old text into split unacceptable behaviours and encourageed behaviours

s/encouraged/expected/

<tzviya> https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/#code

Judy: If i'm understanding correctly it's not just removing never but it's also removing don'ts it may reduce effectiveness.

tzviya: it's not so bad, the merged result is that it goes into more detail

Vlad: I just wanted to point out that removal of the old text was preceded by new text which goes into a lot of detail of unacceptable behaviour.

<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask if others share the view that we should promote expected behaviours earlier in the document than unacceptable ones

nigel: just a structural question, I feel it maybe more useful to put the expected before unacceptable to set the tone.

jeff: channeling judy's thoughts to the unacceptable behaviour why is not bullying an unacceptable behaviour?

tzviya: we left it out because bullying is too general and broard to be useful to matching to specific actions.
... what is bullying to one is not bullying to another

<Ralph> [[
<Ralph> bul·ly
<Ralph> [ˈbo͝olē]
<Ralph> VERB
<Ralph> bullying (present participle)
<Ralph> seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).
<Ralph> ]]

jeff: how is disruption count as bullying?

<Zakim> ada, you wanted to ahve an opinion about nigels question

<Ralph> scribenick: Ralph

Ada: this was taken from a code of conduct that is quite well-regarded
... and has been used by and relied-upon by large communities dealing with harassment
... regarding omitting "bullying"; the term is not specific
... what is "bullying" to one might not be to another
... taken to an extreme it's "be good and don't be bad"
... [better to have] clear actions on what is ok and what actions are harmful
... if there's another type of bullying that isn't in the code we can revise the code later

Tzviya: that said, I would not object to including it if it's necessary
... I believe the phrase is mentioned in the general introduction

<ada> Judy: my comment is not only about bullying but also about harassment

<scribe> scribenick: ada

Neither term is fully self explainatory accross multiple cultures.

<tzviya> the introduction says "W3C strictly prohibits discrimination, intimidation, harassment, and bullying of any kind and on any basis."

some people look at policy for specific terms of harassment and bullying and look for them as important anchor words.

If they are covered in the introduction but not in the nuts and bolts.

One way wouldbe to keep the detail and to have some short phrase at the top that uses the terms but not in a way which is definitive or absolute..

tzviya: we could add a similar statement of the one from the intro to before unacceptable behaviours.

Vlad: the bullets introduced by the taskforce were the core of the code and maybe should be added too.

<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to mention I just added a review comment to the pull request

tzviya: I think we can keep it to just one sentance

nigel: what is trying to be achieved by these changes, I don't feel that language whih is removed is not replaced with similar text.

tzviya: It's hard to see the whole document with the diff.

nigel: I think some parts are removed and not replaced

tzviya: you had specific questions

nigel: i've made comments in the pull request regarding the removed parts
... Can't find the discussions as to why those parts should be removed

Ada: putting the important stuff early; what people *shouldn't* do makes it more likely to be read

Vlad: agrees explaining what is not tolerated is important
... we should remove the glossary because it's patronising and may even violate the Code of COnduct

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/51

tzviya: we should remove this discussion til the end
... issue from ralph that we need to have rapid reporting because of an incident

Angel_: likes having the glossary because as a non-english speaker it has good value

<Ralph> [regarding my action on #51 -- I don't yet have consensus from W3M on the "right" contact for rapid response]

tzviya: a non-english view is very valuable

Ralph: rapid action is important will propose something

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/52

tzviya: last PR, change make a mistake because "mistake" has heavy connotations is very strong in some cultures

<Vlad> +1

<Ralph> +1

tzviya: i'll merge it now
... I love merging prs it makes me happy

Next meeting

scheduling the next meeting:

Angel_: lets continue this rhythm, (2nd thursday) next meeting July 11th
... If more people send their regrets lets reschedule

Ralph: at the same time?

tzviya: yes at the same time

Angel_: yes at the same time

tzviya: intention to keep up the schedle in the oming months
... lets take up the issue of the glossary

Glossary

tzviya: vlad proposes the glossary be removed because it's demeaning, Angel_ it's useful

because as a non-native english speaker

Vlad: I don't think the glossary should define terms not in the English dictionary

<Ralph> ada: these terms are ones that people might have to look up

<Ralph> ... so having the definitions handy makes it easier

<Ralph> ... if there's not an obvious go-to at hand they'll just continue reading

<Ralph> ... providing a glossary is making a tool available

<jeff> +1 to what Ada said

<Ralph> ... it would be demeaning to tell people to read the glossary, so we don't tell them to do so

<tzviya> +1 to ada

Judy: Glossary's are often made available in technical documentation
... In addition the terms may have different understanding in different cultures
... as someone who does work in making W3C resources available in multiple languages it seems useful to me

Angel_: THe glossary itself could do with examples to further explain ambiguous terms such as behaviour.

<jeff> [/me notes that although we thought "bullying" is an undefined term - it is actually defined in the Glossary]

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to speak about contextual definitions

<Zakim> ada, you wanted to ask about adding terms

<Ralph> ada: are there terms we should consider adding?

<Ralph> ... when we were writing "unacceptable behaviors" there were unfamiliar terms such as "outing"

tzviya: Wants to agree with Judy that Glossary provides meanings in context which a dictionary does not

<Ralph> ... should we add terms to help people reading this material for the first time?

Vlad: wanted to make a correction not against it being present, just the content, if the content just duplicates the dicitionary it is probably not needed.
... if we start defining basic terms such as respect it feels patronising to me.

jeff: we define bullying but we define workplace bullying, if you lok up bullying youwon't look under w (for workplace) we're not necarily a work place.

tzviya: conclusion it seems it is useful for many but needs an update.
... we will not include the glossary fixes in the 20th deatdline

<Ralph> +1 to not putting glossary cleanup on the critical path

tzviya: if you have proposals for updating the glossary work with ada
... terms like bullying and outing need to have a definition or be updated.
... people should feel encouraged to make pull requests to the document

<Angel_> Tzviya++

tzviya: thank you!