PWE -- 12 Dec 2019

<scribe> scribenick: Ralph

<scribe> meeting: Positive Work Environment CG

<scribe> chair: Tzviya

previous 05-Dec

[some discussion of reuse of W3C's Code of Conduct by other groups]

Tzviya: any comments on the minutes of 5-Dec?
... I have been keeping the minutes in a wiki

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/PWE-Minutes

Tzviya: hearing no comments, those minute are approved

Review PRs (role of chairs and glossary)

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/75

pull requests

-- #75 Decsribe role of chairs more

Jeff: I'd rather hold this change
... we discussed #41 last meeting and felt that was a major deficiency
... I don't disagree with Chaals' proposed text but it's not descriptive enough
... we could adopt this and keep #41 open
... but I worry that we'd decide we solved #41

#41 Role of Chairs

Tzviya: we're also planning to do chair training
... I don't think it's good to add to CEPC too many specifics about what a chair is supposed to do
... what level of detail should CEPC have?
... I think the somewhat vague language is actually pretty good

Judy: I'd not seen Chaals' proposal before now
... I have multiple issues with it

Jeff: hearing Tzviya's analysis of the language, I'm prepared to not object

Judy: I'm happy to add my comments to the issue

Tzviya: general guidance for chairs in the Reporting section is a good idea
... I'd prefer to tweak his language, however; I don't agree with some of the examples
... e.g. I don't think we want chairs to take a decsion on their own about blocking people from a mailing list
... but the first bullet on advising the person that CEPC exists [is appropriate]
... I suggest we tweak this pr a bit
... with the attitude that we not recommend chairs take unilateral action
... we could leave "ejecting someone from a meeting" up to the chair
... I'm not comfortable with chairs unilaterally blocking from a mailing list and removing comments from an archive
... we should also advise that the chair consult with an ombuds or team contact

Judy: w.r.t. blocking someone, it has been necessary to do this in the past but I'm not aware of any situation where a chair has done this unilaterally

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to talk about the positive role of chairs and team contacts

Judy: that's one example where a unilateral decision would be risky
... to assure uniform application of policy

Jeff: my expectations ...
... we've introduced the role of the chair as being a person to help deal with these problems
... I don't think that's the role of a chair
... the chair's role is to
... (a) establish a group culture whereby people are reminded of the values of W3C and the imperatives of a postive work environment
... the team contacts have a role in advising the chair and getting that point across
... it would be useful to list things the chairs can do to remind people, be aware of edgy behavior, coaching people before problems exist
... team contacts, chairs, and those in leadership position also have a role when it comes to reporting
... the changes in section 4 are good examples
... but I had hoped that the discussion about chairs would cover the full range of what we are expecting
... rather than dealing only with exception problems

Tzviya: so you'd like CEPC to discuss how to prevent problems, not just how to solve them
... I have mixed feelings
... I thought that would be covered in Chair Training

Jeff: it's not exclusive to cover things in chair training
... I've observed that things we assign to "training" tend to ebb and flow with whomever is energized to do training in any particular year
... and things that are in documents persist

Tzviya: so the CEPC should appear in every slide deck

Vlad: in the 10 years since I was appointed as a chair I've never even remotely been in a position to have to _solve_ a problem
... there have been situations where I've had to remind people [to avoid a problem]
... constantly reminding people that they have to be respectful is counter-productive
... the chair has to be aware of things that could happen
... but sometimes simply setting the tone is enough
... constantly reminding people isn't productive

Judy: wondering if there's a simple way
... instead of adding a new section
... what I like about grounding this in a purpose; putting a reminder of the chairs' role in helping a healthy work environment
... respond proactively and immediately
... keep up-to-date and help others get to the right place
... tying a moderate amount of responsibilities with an expection to assure a positive work environment
... if we can do this in a few words that would be a way forward

Tzviya: I like the suggestion to add a positive description of the role of chairs
... Vlad is lucky
... I like the idea of starting proactively, possibly by adding a short section

Ada: I can work on that with Tzviya

Tzviya: Ada and I will propose revised language incorporating the positive language as well as what to do when something goes wrong

-- #66 Glossary

#66 Glossary

Tzviya: one proposed change re 'prejudicial' and 'marginalized'
... I don't feel very strongly about this
... the phrase on 'microaggression'

comment on microaggression

Judy: I'm guessing that "marginalized" is more broadly understood

Tzviya: I'm fine changing this
... Ada, do you recall why we proposed to add a definition of 'professionalism' ?

Judy: is it essential to have such a definition for this release?

<ralph> +1 to skipping if we don't have good text

Ada: I definitely lean toward skipping it
... it's a loaded term with subcontext

Tzviya: I'm happy to skip it

<Vlad> +1 to skipping "professionalism" definition

Ada: I don't actually remember why we propsed to add it

<ada> +1 to skipping

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to talk about "enforcers of this code"

Jeff: we said we'd drop that term
... we haven't yet done it

Tzviya: Chaal's pr has comments to change that

Ada: removing it is in #66

<angel> +1 to skipping "professionalism" definition

Judy: let's scan the rest of the document to assure that this doesn't appear elsewhere

Jeff: ok; I was just confused by Chaal's pull request

Tzviya: how about 'Neurotypical', 'Ombudsperson', and 'Sexism'
... I'll take 'Neurotypical'
... other volunteers?

<tzviya> Inclusivity

<angel> there is a seemingly definition of Ombudsperson on w3c website

Tzviya: the challenge is defining these in our context
... the challenge is defining these in our context

Judy: how about looking at Wikipedia? It might have translations available

Tzviya: Ada and I did look at Wikipedia
... for 'inclusivity' it's a little too broad

<Judy> [JB: Yes, they have a book for some of these terms. Too big.]

Ada: perhaps rather than trying to condense a topic we say "it's approximately this but is broader than can be defined in a short glosary, so here is a resource ..."

Tzviya: might work

<tzviya> ak Ralph

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on Ombudsperson

<angel> there are not many equivalents of Ombudsperson in other languages, think we need to do a good definition for people to understand

Ralph: 'ombudsperson' can be very short
... or it's the aggregate of CEPC and the coming Procedures document
... I'll try for a 5-word version

Vlad: didn't we agree that anything without a definition we'd drop for this version?

Tzviya: I'd like to include these four terms if we can find definitions
... I'd really like to find a definition for 'sexism' so people can't say they don't know what it means

Vlad: trying to define terms that are common and generally understood is condescending

<jeff> Merriam-Webster: Definition of sexism

<jeff> 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex especially : discrimination against women

<jeff> 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Ada: of the remaining terms in the glossary, are there any that you think are clear and patronizing?

Jeff: 'sexism' is a common term in the vernacular
... it seems to me that if we can't align with Merriam-Webster we have a problem
... I gave ^^ their definition
... if it's a good definition, I'd use it
... if it's bad, I think we have a problem

Vlad: yes; if a term is defined in Merriam-Webster and is good than we don't need to include it

Judy: a lot of the dialog in the US recently is about prejudice and discrimination based on gender
... and I don't want to try to deconstruct all of that

Tzviya: I can live with [the Merriam-Webster] definition, though I feel it's missing something

Jeff: I don't feel strongly, but if we're defining a bunch of terms I wouldn't want to leave 'sexism' out

Ada: what's missing from that [Merriam-Webster] definition is "perceived"; i.e. "perceived gender"
... and something about the power balance in the community
... I'd want to say that reverse-sexism can't be a thing, just like reverse-racism isn't a thing
... as well as something about non-binary

Tzviya: we're down to 'Neurotypical' and 'Inclusivity '

<jeff> Back to Merriam - Webster. Definition of neurotypical

<jeff> : not affected with a developmental disorder and especially autism spectrum disorder : exhibiting or characteristic of typical neurological development

Tzviya: Ada and I didn't propose definitions as we feel these are outside our area of expertise

Vlad: do we need these?

Tzviya: yes
... 'Neurotypical' is evolving as a term
... it originated in the autism community and is taking on additional meaning

Tzviya: I don't know enough about the area to write a definition
... CEPC uses the term, which is why we need a definition

Vlad: I don't see 'Neurotypical' used in the text other than in the Glossary

Tzviya: see 'Neurotype'
... we could change that in the glossary

<angel> the reason I put Neurotypical here is, people who dont speak English will have to google it anyway, do we want them to take whatever they find or we want to give them a least something that makes sense in W3C context

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

Judy: the reference given 'neurotype' makes sense and I agree with Angel

<Judy> Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability; both visible and invisible, mental illness, neurotype, physical appearance, body, age, race, socio-economic status, ethnicity, nationality, language, or religion

Judy: people wouldn't know that term unless they are super-fluent English speakers

<Vlad> +1 to what Judy said

Tzviya: the Wikipedia definition of 'neurotype' is actually pretty helpful
... I'm more comfortable with that

Judy: most organizations would say "mental health" rather than "mental illness"

<Vlad> According to issue 62(now closed) we agreed not to duplicate dictionary definitions in the Glossary, unless we need to provide a different definition

<ada> /me +1 mh

Tzivya: that's an easy switch

<ralph> +1 "mental health"

<tzviya> see wikipedia https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neurotype

<angel> +1 to mental health

Tzviya: so we're down to 'Inclusivity'
... where do we get a definition?

Judy: there's more now than there were a few years ago

Ralph: are the risks too high of people finding their own search results for 'inclusivity' that are bad?

Judy: yeah, it would be useful to give a baseline definition

Ada: the glossary is an opportunity to provide some context
... if someone is confused by how something is worded [in the rest of the document], they can refer to the glossary for context
... e.g. racisim has a power dynamic to it and isn't just a simple discrimination

next meeting

Tzviya: one week from today
... we have one week to wrap this up

[adjourned]

<tzviya> rragent, make minutes

- DRAFT -

PWE

12 Dec 2019

Attendees

Contents

Review PRs (role of chairs and glossary)

next meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output