13:55:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:55:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/04/21-pwe-irc
13:55:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:55:21 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Ralph
13:55:34 <Ralph> meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
13:55:41 <Ralph> chair: Tzviya
13:56:27 <Ralph> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2020Apr/0001.html
13:57:10 <Ralph> Agenda+ moving CEPC from AC review to final
13:57:17 <Ralph> Agenda+ Update on MIT IDHR for ombuds program
13:57:24 <Ralph> Agenda+ Updates on training
13:58:36 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/2020/03/24-pwe-minutes.html previous 24-March
13:59:43 <jeff_> present+
14:00:40 <tzviya> present+
14:01:50 <Ralph> present+
14:02:14 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:02:20 <ada> present+
14:02:26 <wendyreid> present+
14:02:33 <Judy> Judy has joined #pwe
14:02:38 <tzviya> maybe i joined the wrong zoom
14:03:57 <jorydotcom> jorydotcom has joined #pwe
14:05:13 <jorydotcom> hi @Ralph can you msg me the zoom info? evidently I am not on the list that got the call details
14:06:44 <Ralph> s/ hi @Ralph can you msg me the zoom info? evidently I am not on the list that got the call details//
14:06:47 <Ralph> scribe: Ralph
14:06:56 <Ralph> chair: Tzviya
14:07:22 <Ralph> zakim, next item
14:07:22 <Zakim> agendum 1. "moving CEPC from AC review to final" taken up [from Ralph]
14:07:30 <Ralph> Tzviya: just a few comments
14:07:31 <jorydotcom> my audio is not working just going to restart quickly
14:07:39 <Ralph> ... grammatical comments
14:07:49 <Ralph> ... how ombuds is linked from the glossary
14:08:31 <Ralph> -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues CEPC issues list
14:08:57 <Ralph> ... a comment on "Unacceptable Behavior" section that we'd worked very hard on
14:09:03 <Ralph> ... suggestion is to add a heading
14:09:20 <Ralph> -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/128 #128
14:09:36 <jeff_> q+
14:09:38 <Ralph> ... we just need to add a subheading to reflect the small pivot we've done
14:09:49 <Ralph> ... what do we do next?
14:09:54 <tzviya> ack jeff_
14:10:29 <jeff_> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/127
14:10:40 <Ralph> Jeff: I'd like to re-raise the question of "sensitivity to contagion" ^^
14:10:54 <Ralph> ... "avoid close contact with others"
14:11:24 <Ralph> ... people suggested our CEPC shouldn't address basic hygiene
14:11:28 <Judy> q+
14:11:36 <tzviya> ack Judy
14:11:56 <Ralph> ... but I note there are irresponsible people going to beaches now
14:12:10 <Ralph> Judy: as well as reports of people assaulting "by means of infection"
14:12:23 <Ralph> ... I thought we considered plugging-in a few words
14:12:50 <Ralph> <ralph> [there's not pull request identified in that issue thread]
14:12:58 <Ralph> ... we don't even have the language to talk about this
14:13:22 <Ralph> Tzviya: CEPC had been nearly finalized as people outside of China were becoming aware of COVID-19
14:13:30 <Ralph> Judy: we had a list of bad behaviors
14:13:37 <Ralph> Tzviya: we have physical contact
14:13:58 <jorydotcom> q+
14:14:07 <tzviya> ack jorydotcom
14:14:18 <Ralph> ... does someone have proposed wording?
14:14:22 <Ralph> Jeff: see my issue
14:14:22 <tzviya> q+
14:14:42 <Ralph> Jory: W3C has offered extensive guidance on how to coordinate activity in a physically distant way
14:15:04 <Ralph> ... do we consider if a group insisted on meeting in-person, is there an aspect of that which is a CEPC violation?
14:15:12 <tzviya> ack tz
14:15:24 <wendyreid> q+
14:15:32 <Ralph> <ralph> +1 to something that would help us address a group with a large contingent who insisted on meeting in person
14:15:50 <Ralph> Tzivya: I'm a little concerned about Jeff's proposed wording; e.g. I don't want someone with the flu near me
14:16:06 <Ralph> ... the wording doesn't correspond with our other wording on unacceptable behaviors
14:16:17 <Ralph> ... [in other cases] we just list unacceptable behaviors
14:16:25 <Ralph> ... "exposing others to ..."
14:16:43 <Ralph> <ralph> "exposing others to contagious disease"
14:16:43 <Judy> Jb pastes in proposed wording to try some tweaks: "During periods of contagion participants should be extremely careful to avoid close contact with others." How about instead: "[do not] violate social distancing guidance."
14:16:44 <jorydotcom> "willfully exposing others to contagious ..."
14:16:45 <Judy> q+
14:16:57 <Ralph> Jeff: when I raised this issue it got no support
14:16:59 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:17:10 <Ralph> ... if we include it we should come up with more aligned wording
14:17:21 <Ralph> Wendy: a lot of it is common sense
14:17:32 <Ralph> ... if I'm sick I need to be mindful of not geting close to others
14:17:50 <Ralph> ... even when we included the physical contact language we got pushback
14:17:56 <Ralph> ... I don't want to reopen that
14:18:04 <Ralph> ... this is also a very situational problem
14:18:15 <Ralph> ... with coronavirus we have very specific restrictions
14:18:39 <Ralph> ... we might not have the same restrictions next year
14:18:51 <Ralph> ... or another ailment comes up and we have different restrictions
14:19:06 <Ralph> ... I worry about very specific language here
14:19:11 <tzviya> ack Judy
14:19:19 <Ralph> ... we're doing a good job of communicating the restrictions we have today
14:19:20 <jeff_> q+ to talk about situational guidance
14:19:23 <Ralph> Judy: mixed thoughts
14:19:35 <Ralph> ... agree with Wendy in terms of group behaviors, aspirationally
14:19:57 <Ralph> ... some people seem to want to ignore common sense
14:20:14 <Ralph> ... for the context of this policy what's important is what individuals do with each other
14:20:34 <Ralph> ... apart from respecting the "social distancing" guidelines, maybe something about not putting others under threat
14:20:37 <tzviya> q+ to address the longevity issue
14:20:48 <tzviya> ack ra
14:20:48 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on "if a group insists"
14:21:45 <Judy> q+ to provide an example
14:23:15 <tzviya> ack jeff_
14:23:15 <Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to talk about situational guidance
14:23:21 <Judy> q+ to provide two examples
14:23:32 <Ralph> Ralph: is CEPC a place for advice to chairs on what to do if only a portion of the group is willing or able to meet in person?
14:24:01 <Ralph> Jeff: there may be a dozen pieces of situational guidance W3C provides if we decide to meet in-person in Vancouver for TPAC
14:24:27 <Ralph> ... but for example we could provide situational guidance for TPAC that if you're sitting with someone at a bar you need to have a face mask
14:24:53 <Judy> q?
14:24:54 <Ralph> ... I'm pretty sure some participants would say "that's your guidance but it's not Member-approved and it's not in CEPC"
14:25:04 <tzviya> ack tz
14:25:04 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to address the longevity issue
14:25:08 <Ralph> ... that's why I suggested a one-line anchor in CEPC to deal with this class of situation
14:25:23 <jorydotcom> +1 to that
14:25:27 <Ralph> Tzviya: Ralph's point about common sense being an argument against codes of conduct is something we should consider
14:25:50 <Ralph> ... even if a vaccine is developed soon, I know people who are imuno-compromised and we'll have to deal with this
14:25:57 <Ralph> ... I think we do need an anchor
14:26:06 <Ralph> Judy: this isn't new at all; we have examples
14:26:37 <Ralph> ... we have people in our community with chemical sensitivities, perfume sensitivities, etc.
14:27:01 <Ralph> ... I know at least one member of our community who does not attend W3C meetings out of concerns that others won't respect this
14:27:38 <Ralph> ... i've been in situations where I've had to ask people to move away from me and my request was not respected
14:28:21 <Ralph> .... whether its chemical allergy or disease contagion, it may be in the realm of "not respecting distancing"
14:29:11 <Ralph> Tzviya: how about "people should avoid knowingly exposing others to contagious diseases"
14:29:24 <Ralph> ... this puts the onus on those who would potentially bring exposure
14:29:42 <Ralph> .... Judy's suggestion is that if somebody is asked to keep a distance, that is respected
14:29:46 <jeff_> q+
14:29:49 <Ralph> ... i.e. two sentences
14:29:49 <jorydotcom> I agree
14:30:00 <tzviya> ack Judy
14:30:00 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to provide an example and to provide two examples
14:30:19 <Ralph> Judy: the pandemic is confusing; we have to assume right now that anyone could carry it
14:30:27 <tzviya> ack jeff_
14:30:42 <Ralph> Jeff: I like Tzviya's phrasing but I'd drop "knowingly"
14:31:10 <tzviya> proposed "Avoid exposing others to contagious disease"
14:31:20 <Ralph> ... you're not as liable if you don't know, however ...
14:31:46 <Ralph> Judy: if we're looking for anchors that are not too time-limited, that fits the criteria
14:32:11 <Ralph> <ralph> "respect need for physical distancing due to allergy or infectious disease"
14:32:42 <Ralph> Judy: "infectious disease" doesn't cover allergy or chemical sensitivity
14:33:00 <Ralph> ... chemical allergies require active behavior on the part of others
14:33:31 <Ralph> ... like camera flash; that requires people to not use flash, and we don't have text about asking people not to wear perfume
14:33:53 <Ralph> ... there have been instances of intentionally using camera flash to abuse
14:33:55 <ada> q+ to ask isn't that just assault?
14:34:18 <tzviya> ack ad
14:34:18 <Zakim> ada, you wanted to ask isn't that just assault?
14:34:32 <Ralph> Ada: cases like that fall under "call the police"
14:34:41 <Ralph> ... straight-up assault
14:35:09 <Ralph> Judy: in the instances I'm aware of  it would not have been an option to call the police
14:35:22 <Ralph> ... though one did end up in court but it took 6 months
14:35:23 <tzviya> proposal: respect requests for social distancing due to health concerns such as immune deficiency or allergies
14:35:38 <Ralph> <ralph> +1 to Tviya's proposed text
14:35:42 <wendyreid> +1
14:36:03 <tzviya> s/social/physical
14:36:12 <Judy> +1 to physical distancing instead of social distancing
14:36:15 <Ralph> Ralph: though "social distancing" is the term in vogue, I believe it should be "physical distancing"
14:37:13 <tzviya> Avoid exposing others to contagious disease
14:38:02 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:38:02 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to express preference for including allergies in the example
14:38:10 <Ralph> Wendy: I prefer the "physical distancing" variant; it's more open
14:38:23 <jeff_> q+
14:38:48 <Ralph> Judy: could we add "immune deficiencies, allergies, chemical sensitivies"
14:39:19 <tzviya> respect requests for physical distancing due to health concerns such as immune deficiency, allergies, or chemical sensitivy
14:40:42 <tzviya> ack j
14:41:34 <Ralph> Judy: with regard to the precautions one takes, whether pandemic or chemical senstivities its not just physical distancing
14:41:48 <Ralph> ... "respect requests for physical distancing or other precautions...."
14:42:12 <Ralph> ... to cover things like hand washing, ...
14:42:23 <Ralph> <ralph> +1 to "other precautions"
14:42:39 <Ralph> Tzviya: if we add "other precautions", this could become very broad
14:42:48 <Ralph> ... do we want more generic language?
14:42:58 <Ralph> ... are we opening a large can of worms at a very late stage?
14:43:21 <Ralph> Wendy: "other precautions" allows for, e.g., what the Canadian Government might require during TPAC
14:43:26 <Judy> q+
14:43:45 <Ralph> ... it's a hook for specific guidance
14:43:58 <Ralph> ... keeping it broad means we can do that
14:44:23 <Ralph> Judy: some of the re-convening specifics include things such as "take your temperature every day"
14:44:30 <tzviya> ack ju
14:44:35 <Judy> q-
14:44:45 <Ralph> Tzviya: I like the idea of broadening the language
14:45:53 <tzviya> respect requests for physical distancing and other precautions due to health concerns such as immune deficiency, allergies, or chemical sensitivity
14:46:13 <wendyreid> +1
14:46:17 <Ralph> <ralph> +1
14:47:23 <jeff_> q+ to answer Tzviya's question from 30 minutes ago
14:47:29 <Ralph> Tzviya: I'll update github
14:47:29 <tzviya> ack je
14:47:29 <Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to answer Tzviya's question from 30 minutes ago
14:47:43 <Ralph> Jeff: on "what happens next?"
14:48:12 <Ralph> ... once we have a revised document that takes into account the various comments we've received it pays to have a brief call for consensus
14:48:16 <Ralph> ... perhaps W3M as well
14:48:25 <Ralph> ... and maybe AB also
14:48:32 <Ralph> ... then it could go for AC Review
14:48:54 <Ralph> ... if we were making major changes we should offer another review round but we're not making such major changes
14:49:01 <Judy> q+
14:49:04 <Ralph> ... set up a WBS and issue the Call for Review
14:49:24 <tzviya> ack ju
14:49:29 <Ralph> Judy: the process Jeff just described would be great to capture in detail here
14:49:47 <Ralph> ... to limit surprise
14:49:57 <Ralph> ... are we OK with coupling this with W3C Process ?
14:50:12 <Ralph> Jeff: we are way ahead of the Process 2020 timetable
14:50:19 <Ralph> ... i'm not worried about that constraint
14:50:25 <ada> q+ to ask whether coupling will prevent us from my making updates
14:51:11 <Ralph> Judy: what should we do w.r.t. W3M?
14:51:30 <Ralph> Jeff: generally speaking, all decisions made by W3C are Director Decisions
14:51:51 <Ralph> ... revising CEPC is also a Director Decision and the Director has delegated that to W3M
14:52:01 <Ralph> ... it shouldn't take W3M very long
14:52:23 <Ralph> .... the AB in Process 2020 has put themselves in the approval loop for future revisions of CEPC
14:53:18 <tzviya> ack ad
14:53:18 <Zakim> ada, you wanted to ask whether coupling will prevent us from my making updates
14:53:19 <Judy> q+
14:53:50 <Ralph> Ada: we should maintain the possibility of updating the document frequently
14:54:05 <Judy> q+ to comment on process steps -- what, and how we document those
14:54:10 <Ralph> ... should the event arise that we haven't written the perfect document for all time
14:54:25 <tzviya> ack r
14:54:25 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on AB
14:54:25 <jeff_> q+ to support Ada's notion of updating the document frequently
14:56:03 <tzviya> ack Judy
14:56:03 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on process steps -- what, and how we document those
14:56:25 <Ralph> Ralph: W3M will have to send to AC Review so the same request to them can serve both as a final review and start of AC Review
14:57:35 <Ralph> Judy: we should plan on how we want this document to be maintained and we should state that in this document
14:58:46 <Ralph> Jeff: I agree with Ada that it would be great if we had a mechanism to maintain this document on a more frequent schedule
15:00:24 <Ralph> Ralph: it would be a major change to this document to add a maintenance plan now
15:00:34 <Ralph> Tzviya: so we won't add it at this point?
15:00:38 <jorydotcom> * unfortunately I need to drop. This has been a really interesting conversation & I hope to contribute more on it next time
15:00:52 <Ralph> Judy: +1, though we should think what we want
15:02:06 <ada> +11
15:02:11 <Ralph> topic: AOB
15:02:23 <Ralph> Tzviya: we'll have to catch up on the rest of the agenda next meeting
15:02:42 <Ralph> Judy: I'm working on preparing for a call with MIT Ombuds Office
15:03:03 <Ralph> Tzviya: next call scheduled for 5 May
15:03:07 <Ralph> ... I am possibly at risk
15:03:43 <Ralph> ... assume we'll meet that day; I'll send a notification if not
15:04:11 <Ralph> [adjourned]
15:04:40 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
15:04:40 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jeff_, tzviya, Ralph, ada, wendyreid
15:04:42 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:04:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/04/21-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:04:45 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:04:49 <Ralph> present+ Judy
15:04:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
15:05:30 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
15:05:30 <RRSAgent> I see no action items