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