Meeting minutes
Moving CEPC from AC review to final
Tzviya: just a few comments
... grammatical comments
… how ombuds is linked from the glossary
Tzviya: a comment on
"Unacceptable Behavior" section that we'd worked very hard on
… suggestion is to add a heading
Tzviya: we just need to add
a subheading to reflect the small pivot we've done
… what do we do next?
<jeff_> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/127
Jeff: I'd like to re-raise
the question of "sensitivity to contagion" ^^
… "avoid close contact with others"
… people suggested our CEPC shouldn't address basic
hygiene
… but I note there are irresponsible people going to
beaches now
Judy: as well as reports of
people assaulting "by means of infection"
… I thought we considered plugging-in a few words
<Ralph> [there's not pull request identified in that issue thread]
Judy: we don't even have the language to talk about this
Tzviya: CEPC had been nearly finalized as people outside of China were becoming aware of COVID-19
Judy: we had a list of bad behaviors
Tzviya: we have physical
contact
… does someone have proposed wording?
Jeff: see my issue
Jory: W3C has offered
extensive guidance on how to coordinate activity in a physically
distant way
… do we consider if a group insisted on meeting
in-person, is there an aspect of that which is a CEPC violation?
<Ralph> +1 to something that would help us address a group with a large contingent who insisted on meeting in person
Tzivya: I'm a little
concerned about Jeff's proposed wording; e.g. I don't want someone
with the flu near me
… the wording doesn't correspond with our other
wording on unacceptable behaviors
… [in other cases] we just list unacceptable behaviors
… "exposing others to ..."
<Ralph> "exposing others to contagious disease"
<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."
<jorydotcom> "willfully exposing others to contagious ..."
Jeff: when I raised this
issue it got no support
… if we include it we should come up with more aligned
wording
Wendy: a lot of it is common
sense
… if I'm sick I need to be mindful of not getting
close to others
… even when we included the physical contact language
we got pushback
… I don't want to reopen that
… this is also a very situational problem
… with coronavirus we have very specific restrictions
… we might not have the same restrictions next year
… or another ailment comes up and we have different
restrictions
… I worry about very specific language here
… we're doing a good job of communicating the
restrictions we have today
Judy: mixed thoughts
… agree with Wendy in terms of group behaviors,
aspirationally
… some people seem to want to ignore common sense
… for the context of this policy what's important is
what individuals do with each other
… apart from respecting the "social distancing"
guidelines, maybe something about not putting others under threat
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on "if a group insists"
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to talk about situational guidance
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?
Jeff: there may be a dozen
pieces of situational guidance W3C provides if we decide to meet
in-person in Vancouver for TPAC
… 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
… I'm pretty sure some participants would say "that's
your guidance but it's not Member-approved and it's not in CEPC"
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to address the longevity issue
Jeff: that's why I suggested a one-line anchor in CEPC to deal with this class of situation
<jorydotcom> +1 to that
Tzviya: Ralph's point about
common sense being an argument against codes of conduct is something
we should consider
… even if a vaccine is developed soon, I know people
who are immuno-compromised and we'll have to deal with this
… I think we do need an anchor
Judy: this isn't new at all;
we have examples
… we have people in our community with chemical
sensitivities, perfume sensitivities, etc.
… I know at least one member of our community who does
not attend W3C meetings out of concerns that others won't respect
this
… i've been in situations where I've had to ask people
to move away from me and my request was not respected
… whether its chemical allergy or disease contagion,
it may be in the realm of "not respecting distancing"
Tzviya: how about "people
should avoid knowingly exposing others to contagious diseases"
… this puts the onus on those who would potentially
bring exposure
… Judy's suggestion is that if somebody is asked to
keep a distance, that is respected
… i.e. two sentences
<jorydotcom> I agree
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to provide an example and to provide two examples
Judy: the pandemic is confusing; we have to assume right now that anyone could carry it
Jeff: I like Tzviya's phrasing but I'd drop "knowingly"
<tzviya> proposed "Avoid exposing others to contagious disease"
Jeff: you're not as liable if you don't know, however ...
Judy: if we're looking for anchors that are not too time-limited, that fits the criteria
<Ralph> "respect need for physical distancing due to allergy or infectious disease"
Judy: "infectious disease"
doesn't cover allergy or chemical sensitivity
… chemical allergies require active behavior on the
part of others
… like camera flash; that requires people to not use
flash, and we don't have text about asking people not to wear
perfume
… there have been instances of intentionally using
camera flash to abuse
<Zakim> ada, you wanted to ask isn't that just assault?
Ada: cases like that fall
under "call the police"
… straight-up assault
Judy: in the instances I'm
aware of it would not have been an option to call the police
… though one did end up in court but it took 6 months
<tzviya> proposal: respect requests for social distancing due to health concerns such as immune deficiency or allergies
<Ralph> +1 to Tviya's proposed text
<wendyreid> +1
<Judy> +1 to physical distancing instead of social distancing
Ralph: though "social distancing" is the term in vogue, I believe it should be "physical distancing"
<tzviya> Avoid exposing others to contagious disease
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to express preference for including allergies in the example
Wendy: I prefer the "physical distancing" variant; it's more open
Judy: could we add "immune deficiencies, allergies, chemical sensitivities"
<tzviya> respect requests for physical distancing due to health concerns such as immune deficiency, allergies, or chemical sensitivity
Judy: with regard to the
precautions one takes, whether pandemic or chemical sensitivities its
not just physical distancing
… "respect requests for physical distancing or other
precautions...."
… to cover things like hand washing, ...
<Ralph> +1 to "other precautions"
Tzviya: if we add "other
precautions", this could become very broad
… do we want more generic language?
… are we opening a large can of worms at a very late
stage?
Wendy: "other precautions"
allows for, e.g., what the Canadian Government might require during
TPAC
… it's a hook for specific guidance
… keeping it broad means we can do that
Judy: some of the re-convening specifics include things such as "take your temperature every day"
Tzviya: I like the idea of broadening the language
<tzviya> respect requests for physical distancing and other precautions due to health concerns such as immune deficiency, allergies, or chemical sensitivity
<wendyreid> +1
<Ralph> +1
Tzviya: I'll update github
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to answer Tzviya's question from 30 minutes ago
Jeff: on "what happens
next?"
… 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
… perhaps W3M as well
… and maybe AB also
… then it could go for AC Review
… if we were making major changes we should offer
another review round but we're not making such major changes
… set up a WBS and issue the Call for Review
Judy: the process Jeff just
described would be great to capture in detail here
… to limit surprise
… are we OK with coupling this with W3C Process ?
Jeff: we are way ahead of
the Process 2020 timetable
… i'm not worried about that constraint
Judy: what should we do w.r.t. W3M?
Jeff: generally speaking,
all decisions made by W3C are Director Decisions
… revising CEPC is also a Director Decision and the
Director has delegated that to W3M
… it shouldn't take W3M very long
… the AB in Process 2020 has put themselves in the
approval loop for future revisions of CEPC
<Zakim> ada, you wanted to ask whether coupling will prevent us from my making updates
Ada: we should maintain the
possibility of updating the document frequently
… should the event arise that we haven't written the
perfect document for all time
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on AB
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on process steps -- what, and how we document those
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
Judy: we should plan on how we want this document to be maintained and we should state that in this document
Jeff: I agree with Ada that it would be great if we had a mechanism to maintain this document on a more frequent schedule
Ralph: it would be a major change to this document to add a maintenance plan now
Tzviya: so we won't add it at this point?
Judy: +1, though we should think what we want
<ada> +11
AOB
Tzviya: we'll have to catch up on the rest of the agenda next meeting
Judy: I'm working on preparing for a call with MIT Ombuds Office
Tzviya: next call scheduled
for 5 May
… I am possibly at risk
… assume we'll meet that day; I'll send a notification
if not
[adjourned]