Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2020:-03-03
<Ralph> previous 11-Feb
tzviya: Offschedule meeting because of the AB meeting, and we're hoping to put the CFC out with the process doc on March 21
Ralph: We could still work through the PRs
… and another CFC after
tzviya: Much to my surprise, we did not get to consensus with the AB, or final proposed language
Resolve open PRs on CEPC [3] and discuss AB’s pending approval
tzviya: let's look at the existing pull requests
<Ralph> pulls
tzviya: Here are the existing PRs
… one of the issues that the AB had was that these are all separate
… let's take a look at PR 117
… a tweak to the section on reverse-isms
<Ralph> #117 tweak to reverse -isms
tzviya: the proposed language right now is something the AB agreed on and everyone here can agree on
… there is a diff document that has the change
<Ralph> diff
<fantasai> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/117/67bb88c...37bf364.html#unacceptablebehavior
tzviya: it's a minor tweak
… it takes out the concept of enforcement
… adds in perceived reverse-isms
… in GH everyone agreed and everyone here has approved
+1
<tzviya> +1
dkaplan31: I like that perceived resolves this, and I trust Ada
tzviya: I think we're all comfortable with this
<Ralph> +1
<dkaplan31> +1
tzviya: that was relatively easy
fantasai: Procedural question, are we formally resolving in the call?
tzviya: Yes, we do this here and then merge.
… merging it now
… next we will look at PR 118
<Ralph> #118 Tweaks to expected behaviors #118
<Ralph> diff
tzviya: 118 was about removing some of the repetition and the language was more along the lines of a process
… limited changes
… the bullet "respect" was moved to "treat everyone with respect"
… seemed to be generally accepted
Ralph: I had a hard time following all of dsinger's requests
tzviya: I talked it over with him and I think everything is agreed on
… merged!
… time to move on to the complicated ones
… let's do PR 123
<Ralph> Fix misuse of semicolon. Issue #120 #123
<fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/123/files
tzviya: fixing some semicolons
<dkaplan31> +1
+1
tzviya: This will close issue 120 right?
fantasai: It'll reference it being closed
<fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/119
<Ralph> Clarify physical contact being unacceptable. Fixes #119 #124
tzviya: The next one is about PR 119
<fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/124/files
fantasai: This is for PR 124, fixing issue 119
<Ralph> +1 to #124
tzviya: Proposed language to make the physical contact clause more culturally-sensitive
dkaplan31: I -1 this one, I don't like removing the consent clause
… unwelcome is too difficult to interpret
tzviya: I would prefer to talk about explicit consent
fantasai: This wording appears in other places
tzviya: Comments and physical contact are different
… unwelcome attention or comments are difficult to define, but physical contact requires explicit consent
fantasai: I worry that it will be taken as "don't touch anyone ever"
Wendy: an important part of CEPC is that it is _reported_
me q-
… this text is to protect people who don't want to be touched
… not to ban hugging
… I don't interpret "explicit consent" as "never touch"
<tzviya> acl dkaplan
Fantasai: I interpret as "never touch"
Deborah: "explicit consent" in a policy allows for future consent
dkaplan31: The thing about requesting consent is it might be disruptive to some, but if some people ask I have time for that
… it leaves it open for the W3C at events to do contact stickers, a popular accessibility practice
… a sticker is inherently consent
… I understand asking adds a level of friction, but it's hugely important for accessibility and trauma
<tzviya> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
tzviya: I want to add on to what Deborah said, adding the consent clause is important
… I have a link above that discusses consent
… the concept of consent can be awkward at first
… I talk to my children about this, I ask him if we wants a kiss, he can say no
… it's sometimes impossible to deny someone's physical contact, and puts the onus on potential abusers, explicit consent removes that onus
… it's very important
Ralph: +1
… I was initially ok with this change, after hearing the comments, I strongly agree now
… some form of consent is required, it can take many forms
… it needs to stay in the code
… if people choose to read it strictly, that is their prerogative
… someone can say they're ok with hugs
fantasai: I'm seeing some strong inconsistencies, it doesn't have to change existing behaviours, it's not about reporting
… no one should have to report
… it's about self-regulation
… it's mostly about the rules an individual need to operate under
… I don't think it's about reporting but also about accepted behaviour
… we're saying that everyone needs to change their behaviour
… I feel like this is making things awkward
… I am just going to distance myself from people
tzviya: This isn't about what we are personally comfrotable with, but what we do to make people comfortable
Ralph: I hope that people are already asking
… but the people who should ask don't
… I think the code should be clear, before physical contact, there should be some sort of confirmation
… the defintion of consent is voluntary agreement
… Elika, you're reading it too literally
<dkaplan31> Tzviya "sometimes codes of conduct make us uncomfortable" +1
Ralph: the advice is good for people who should be paying attention to it
Wendy: when we're talking about an example such as a handshake, there's a clear physical indicator
… if you're not comfortable you can choose not to extend your hand
… with hugs there are situations when someone just grabs you; I'd rather be asked "are you a hugger?" or "is it OK to hug?"
… we have to keep consent in there; it's so important for people's comfort
fantasai: So I'm getting mixed messages
… is it explicit or not?
tzviya: This CEPC might call attention to things that someone might be doing that doesn't align with expected behaviours
+1 to this revision calling attention to things some people hadn't previously thought about in themselves
tzviya: it might be uncomfortable and change your behaviour
… it might make someone realize they've been doing something
… it doesn't mean a small violation is a punishable offence
… we check ourselves
… we become aware of our biases
… we attempt to make little changes to our behaviours to correct these things
… it might make us uncomfortable to make these changes
… it makes the W3C a better environment
… it's to raise awareness, an educational document, but there's also guidelines as to what is an offense
… we take this, internalize it, and apply it to our practices
fantasai: Is everyone going to have an explicit conversation once this is enacted
tzviya: It's going to be up to personal interpretation
dkaplan31: What it means to me
… a lot of colleges have implemented similar rules to address secual harassment
… if you are not sure the person you are touching has granted you consent, you should ask
… that's how colleges interpret this rule
tzviya: I think we've agreed to not merge this PR
+1 to reject #124
tzviya: do we need to raise this to the larger group
Ralph: Will the proposer object to us rejecting this?
fantasai: If dkaplan31's explanation was represented in the wording I would be fine
tzviya: We will not write a CoC that says "you must ask permission"
fantasai: That is not the suggestion
tzviya: Is there an objection to rejecting this?
fantasai: No
tzviya: Let's move on to PR 122
tzviya: This was about the definition of reverseisms
tzviya: there was a lot of discussion about the definition of reverse isms
… the concerns of the AB would likely be raised by the AC as well
… one of the proposals is to remove this definition completey
… and leave the section in the code
dkaplan31: I agree with the thing raised in the PR by Ada, if we do not say "reverseisms are legitimate" the language in the CoC might be used to say they are
… if we are not going to say "they're not legitimate", they should not be defined
tzviya: We have a PR with reverseisms in the glossary and code, but if we remove the definition, we are ok
<fantasai> +1
+1 to drop the problematic definition
tzviya: new proposal to retain the new definition of prejudice and remove reverse-isms definition
+1
<dkaplan31> +1
Ralph: Let's drop it if we can't get consensus, but have we spoken with Ada?
tzviya: I would want to run this by the group too
fantasai: There's +1s from Marcos
<fantasai> marcos & vlad: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/122#issuecomment-592304945
Ralph: And Vlad
tzviya: I think it's up to the chairs if we do another CfC
Ralph: If Ada agrees, I think we are ok
tzviya: I won't merge this without checking with Ada
… if we have her approval then I am ok to add the edit removing the definition and close the PR
… we will not need another CfC, send to the AB for approval, and then circulated to the AC
… sent alongside the Process doc on the 21st
fantasai: Time period would be around a month
… for scheduling, we could send the CEPC earlier if its ready
+1 to Fantasai "send it earlier than Process 2020 if it's ready"
tzviya: Ok, I'll leave it up to Jeff
… I'll be in touch with Ada
… and An Qi
… I didn't put this on the agenda, but we are looking for translators
… An Qi offered for Chinese, Vlad for Russian, Marcos for Portuguese, and Coralie for French
… other items
… Jory will be doing a trial run of her training on conflict resoultion with the Team
Ralph: I don't know about the timing
tzviya: I'll wait to update on the ombuds until the next meeting
… Judy and I had a called with the executive director of the ombuds association
… we have a lot of work to do
Ralph: Jory's trial run is scheduled for March 19
tzviya: Do you know when the session for everyone is?
Ralph: No, but it'll be sometime after that
US changes to DST
tzviya: I wanted to leave time for discussing the time change
… our calendar has it scheduled for 10am EST alternating tuesdays
… should we shift to later? But let me talk to An Qi
… the next meeting will be while I'm at a conference in Toronto and speaking
… but I can ask An Qi to chair
… and the 13 April meeting is in the middle of Passover
… I'll check with her if this time still works
… the next meeting will be March 24 at 10am EDT
<tzviya> rrsagentagent, make logs public