13:36:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:36:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/05/05-pwe-irc
13:36:16 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:36:18 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
13:36:34 <Ralph> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2020May/0002.html
13:36:54 <Ralph> Agenda+ Open issues/PRs on CEPC [3]
13:36:54 <Ralph> Agenda+ Update on MIT IDHR for ombuds program (Judy, Ralph)
13:37:18 <Ralph> Agenda+ Update from Jory
13:38:52 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/2020/04/21-pwe-minutes.html previous 21-Apr
13:58:55 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #pwe
13:59:24 <jorydotcom> jorydotcom has joined #pwe
14:00:31 <nigel> nigel has joined #pwe
14:01:15 <jeff> jeff has joined #pwe
14:01:49 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:02:06 <Ralph> presnet+
14:02:38 <wendyreid> present+
14:02:42 <tzviya> present+
14:02:42 <jeff> present+
14:02:46 <jorydotcom> present +
14:03:36 <jeff> present+ aderet
14:03:43 <jeff> present+ eliyahu
14:04:06 <Ralph> scribe+
14:04:10 <Ralph> chair: Tzviya
14:04:41 <Ralph> zakim, next item
14:04:41 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Open issues/PRs on CEPC" taken up [from 3]
14:05:05 <Ralph> -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls pull requests
14:05:09 <Ralph> Tzviya: #130 ...
14:05:12 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/130
14:05:30 <Ralph> ... I only want to discuss objections
14:05:43 <Judy> Judy has joined #pwe
14:05:43 <Ralph> ... #130 is about ombuds links
14:05:56 <Ralph> ... so people who have issues they want to raise know where that goes
14:06:08 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/130
14:08:03 <Ralph> <Ralph> +1 to #130
14:08:21 <Ralph> Judy: WFM
14:08:22 <jeff> wfm
14:08:36 <Ralph> Wendy: merging ...
14:09:00 <Ralph> Tzviya: -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/131 #131
14:09:38 <Ralph> ... the comment is that the text talks about execution of CEPC, not about "unacceptable behaviors"
14:09:46 <Ralph> ... simple fix is to add a subheading
14:09:49 <Judy> wfm
14:09:55 <jeff> q+
14:10:05 <Ralph> Wendy: wfm
14:10:05 <tzviya> ack j
14:10:23 <Ralph> Jeff: I don't object but I think it's a bit of a strange word
14:10:30 <Ralph> ... showing up in the middle
14:10:39 <Ralph> ... "Priorities" could be over everything
14:10:51 <Ralph> ... perhaps "safety and comfort" ?
14:11:01 <Ralph> Tzviya: that suggestion works for me
14:11:13 <Ralph> Jory: +1 to Jeff's improvement; more descriptive
14:11:27 <Ralph> Judy: "comfort range" might cause people to think about it in a dismissive way
14:11:40 <Ralph> ... we can't make everybody comfortable
14:12:07 <Ralph> Jeff: I simply extracted text from the first sentence
14:12:54 <Ralph> Tzviya: I do like Jeff's suggestion
14:13:19 <Judy> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/133
14:13:25 <Ralph> Tzviya: -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/133 #133
14:13:31 <Ralph> ... this is just about whitespace
14:13:51 <Ralph> Wendy: there should not have been a space
14:14:01 <Ralph> Judy: just copyediting!
14:14:21 <Ralph> Tzviya: -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/134 #134
14:14:36 <Ralph> ... we had lots of discussion about this at the @@ last meeting
14:15:01 <tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/134/dce89a7...edc0281.html
14:15:41 <Ralph> Judy: it appears the only change is "respect request" changes to 'accomodate participants' needs"
14:15:53 <Ralph> Tzviya: there's a slight nuance
14:16:20 <Judy> +1 to accommodate needs
14:16:24 <Judy> q+
14:16:26 <Ralph> ... my initial wording "request requests for" puts the burden on the person with the need
14:16:53 <Ralph> ... "accomodate needs" removes the onus on a particular person
14:17:05 <Ralph> Judy: Vlad is aiming for the result
14:17:15 <tzviya> ack ju
14:17:25 <Ralph> <Ralhp> +1
14:17:29 <Ralph> s/hp/ph
14:17:33 <Ralph> Tzviya: merged
14:17:56 <Ralph> Tzviya: back to #131 ...
14:18:05 <Ralph> ... Jeff suggested "Safety versus Comfort"
14:18:53 <Ralph> ... change from subheading "Priorites" to "Safety vs. Comfort"
14:18:58 <Ralph> <Ralph> +1
14:19:34 <Ralph> [[
14:19:36 <Ralph>      Retaliating, or taking adverse action, against anyone who files a complaint that someone has violated this code of conduct.
14:19:36 <Ralph> 3.2.1 Priorities
14:19:36 <Ralph> This Code prioritizes the safety of individuals, particularly those in marginalized communities, over the comfort of others, for example in situations involving:
14:19:36 <Ralph> ]]
14:19:59 <Ralph> <ralph> ^^ is the current diff from the pr
14:20:13 <Ralph> <ralph> ... the proposal now is just to change the subheading text
14:20:43 <Ralph> Judy: so "retaliating" becomes safety ...
14:20:47 <Ralph> ... OK; I'm fine
14:20:56 <Ralph> Tzvya: "versus" or "and" ?
14:21:15 <Ralph> Wendy: "versus" fits better with the first line of that section
14:21:20 <Ralph> Jeff: I'm comfortable with either
14:21:29 <Ralph> Judy: "versus" is closer to what we want
14:21:36 <Ralph> Tzviya: ok, "versus" it is
14:21:43 <Ralph> Wendy: I'll edit and merge
14:21:58 <Ralph> Tzviya: we're closed all the open pull requests and all the open issues!
14:22:05 <Ralph> ... we can pass this on for the final round of approvals
14:22:14 <Judy> s/so "retaliating" becomes safety/just checking what just got categorized as just "comfort".... /
14:22:31 <Ralph> ... I'll work on writing something up for Comm to pass along
14:23:14 <Ralph> Jeff: before we send for AC approval, do we need another CfC?
14:23:31 <Ralph> Ralph: if the chairs and editors believe all this is editorial, I don't think a formal CfC is necessary
14:23:38 <Ralph> Tzviya: I'll confirm with An Qi tomorrow
14:24:13 <tzviya> q?
14:24:30 <Ralph> Ralph: anyone here think any of this is more than editorial?  my answer is 'no'
14:24:39 <Ralph> Wendy: also no
14:24:42 <Ralph> Jory: also no
14:25:17 <Ralph> zakim, next item
14:25:17 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Update on MIT IDHR for ombuds program (Judy, Ralph)" taken up [from Ralph]
14:25:47 <Ralph> Judy: MIT is now holding regular appointments again
14:25:54 <Ralph> ... I'll propose some times to Ralph
14:26:05 <Ralph> Ralph: nothing new on my part
14:26:15 <Ralph> Judy: we could meet with both offices at the same time
14:26:38 <Ralph> Tzviya: we'll come back to this at the next meeting
14:26:48 <jeff> q+
14:26:48 <Ralph> zakim, next item
14:26:49 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Ralph
14:27:20 <Ralph> Jory: update on work and conversations since my presentation to W3T
14:27:34 <Ralph> ... we've had a couple of meetings to collect more feedback from the Team
14:27:49 <Ralph> ... thinking about changes to the original plan in light of current COVID workmode
14:28:15 <Ralph> .... I'm hoping to talk here about incorporating real-world examples
14:28:22 <Ralph> ... W3C experiences of conflict
14:28:34 <Ralph> ... to incorporate into the framework of conflict
14:28:38 <Ralph> ... show by way of example
14:29:04 <Ralph> .... I had hoped to find some time with the group to have this conversation and get your thoughts on types of experiences you've had that we could possibly work in
14:29:10 <jeff> q-
14:29:15 <jeff> agenda+ next meeting
14:29:36 <Ralph> ... another development is shifting to on-line delivery and changing the format to something like Big Blue Button
14:29:42 <Ralph> ... to allow polling and more interactivity
14:29:45 <Ralph> zakim, next item
14:29:45 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Update from Jory" taken up [from Ralph]
14:29:55 <Ralph> ... interactive components to make the content more "sticky"
14:29:57 <Judy> q+
14:30:10 <Ralph> ... can we have time in a future meeting to workshop that together?
14:30:55 <Ralph> Judy: you're thinking pretty far ahead; maybe we can try to start that brainstorming now?
14:31:06 <Ralph> ... you had several conceptual blocks in the Team training
14:31:29 <Ralph> ... we could highlight those blocks and think about what W3C examples come to mind
14:32:06 <jorydotcom> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ga3qv3EbdFJGGesEmknwNJ72AQvh3ULn6FmvYHN-LyE/edit
14:32:30 <Ralph> Jory: I'd been encouraged to pose this before the meeting and didn't have time so I didn't want to ask people to start brainstorming :)
14:32:49 <Ralph> ... in the session I ran I presented framework followed by examples
14:32:54 <Judy> q+
14:33:02 <Ralph> ... the idea is to do examples first then framework
14:33:24 <Ralph> Jeff: the next meeting is in conflict with the AC meeting
14:33:31 <Ralph> Tzviya: yep
14:34:09 <Ralph> ... we probably need to skip that meeting and make 2 June the next meeting
14:34:17 <jeff> Ralph and Judy ++ in advance
14:34:18 <Ralph> resolved: next meeting will be 2 June
14:34:24 <tzviya> ack ju
14:34:28 <Ralph> Judy: back to brainstorming ...
14:34:47 <Ralph> ... shortly before the Team training PLH was starting to add W3C examples
14:35:08 <Ralph> ... let's look at one of those topics to start
14:35:17 <Ralph> Jory: the examples that came easiest were at the top;
14:35:26 <Ralph> .... basic structural things and default conflict modes
14:35:40 <Ralph> ... .what I felt warranted more conversation is in the escalation model
14:35:52 <Ralph> ... we see many different things as a conflict comes together
14:36:00 <Ralph> ... behavior, context from the environment and the situation
14:36:08 <Ralph> ... makes us wonder if this is phase 1 or phase 2
14:36:20 <Ralph> ... I wanted to look specifically at phases 2-4
14:36:52 <Ralph> ... slides 34 and 35
14:37:00 <Ralph> Judy: our favorite ratholes!
14:37:11 <Ralph> Tzviya: we have to be super-cautious about real-world examples
14:37:39 <Ralph> Jory: absolutely; every example has to be thoroughly scrubbed of identifying information
14:38:04 <jeff> q+
14:38:11 <tzviya> ack jeff
14:38:20 <tzviya> q+ jeff
14:38:24 <Ralph> Judy: looking for recurring conflicts?
14:38:36 <Ralph> Jory: tension is the first clue we humans have that a conflict is brewing
14:38:48 <tzviya> q+ to mention an example
14:39:14 <Ralph> ... the shift from feeling the tension to seeing it play out in conversation is what we're looking to describe
14:39:30 <Ralph> ... a debate that no longer feels that it is using conflict behaviors that keep it in a productive zone
14:39:35 <Ralph> ... e.g. appealing to authority
14:39:45 <tzviya> ack je
14:40:21 <Ralph> Jeff: maybe we can talk about examples to see what is problematic behavior and what is not
14:41:08 <Ralph> .... it is standard operating practice that I've seen where one participant says "we've already shipped and aren't changing"
14:41:17 <Ralph> ... that could be "appeal to higher authority"
14:41:28 <Ralph> ... but there's a level of detail underneath that is highly complex
14:41:45 <Ralph> Tzviya: agree with Jeff; maybe it helps to use CEPC as a guide
14:42:37 <jeff> q+ to differentiate "timing" and "argumentative"
14:42:39 <Ralph> ... a nuanced scenario in which people involved day-to-day perceived bullying but the record wasn't so clear from the outside
14:43:29 <tzviya> ack me
14:43:29 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to mention an example
14:44:20 <tzviya> ack je
14:44:20 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to differentiate "timing" and "argumentative"
14:44:39 <Ralph> Jeff: this helps illustrate why these are so complex
14:45:44 <Judy> q+
14:46:01 <Ralph> ... in a verbal conversation, rapid-fire interruption is problematic
14:46:10 <tzviya> ack jo
14:46:54 <Ralph> ... [in asynchronous conversation] a rapid response might not be such a problem
14:47:03 <Ralph> ... the content of the response matters more [then]
14:48:02 <tzviya> ack ju
14:48:29 <Ralph> Judy: I've seen reactions that i characterize as reflexive dismissal
14:49:20 <Ralph> ... rapid-fire electronic communication operates differently
14:49:28 <Ralph> ... and affects how others contribute
14:49:53 <Ralph> Ralph: that's pretty much what I raised my hand to say
14:50:17 <Ralph> Judy: so stage 1 identifiers can be tricky; people might not be listening in the optimum way
14:50:43 <Ralph> Jory: behaviors that are likely to increase rather than decrease the conflict
14:50:57 <Ralph> .... that's what I'm trying to help people understand
14:51:12 <tzviya> q?
14:51:28 <jeff> q+
14:52:46 <Ralph> Judy: I experienced a case where a well-respected expert was invited to advise a Group and was being dismissed as not informed
14:53:03 <tzviya> ack je
14:53:08 <Ralph> Jory: there's a pattern that occurs in debate of denial of another person's experience
14:53:48 <wendyreid> q+
14:54:45 <tzviya> ack we
14:55:07 <Ralph> Wendy: it's also a matter of tone of response
14:55:24 <Judy> q+
14:56:03 <Judy> q+ to ask Jory about positive behaviors in this thread -- and how they fit with your model
14:56:27 <Ralph> Jeff: yes; tone is a very important point
14:56:39 <Ralph> ... perhaps it needs to be added to Jory's terminology
14:57:34 <tzviya> ack ju
14:57:34 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask Jory about positive behaviors in this thread -- and how they fit with your model
14:58:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/05/05-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:59:12 <Ralph> Judy: to add relevant examples you could add hypotheticals
14:59:19 <Ralph> ... about interventions that might help
14:59:53 <Ralph> Jory: I think it might
15:00:21 <Ralph> ... an example that's maybe big but has little chunks that can be talked-through
15:02:06 <Ralph> ... may I email and propose continuing the conversation rather than waiting a month?
15:02:25 <Ralph> Judy: perhaps itemize 5 or more concepts that you'd be interested in finding examples to highlight
15:02:28 <Ralph> ... homework questions
15:03:31 <Ralph> [adjourned]
15:04:48 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
15:04:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been wendyreid, tzviya, jeff, aderet, eliyahu
15:04:51 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:04:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/05/05-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:04:54 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:04:59 <Ralph> present+ Jory
15:04:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
15:53:27 <Ralph> rrsagent, ybe
15:53:27 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'ybe', Ralph.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:53:30 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
15:53:30 <RRSAgent> I see no action items