Meeting minutes
Open issues/PRs on CEPC
Tzviya: #130 ...
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/130
Tzviya: I only want to
discuss objections
… #130 is about ombuds links
… so people who have issues they want to raise know
where that goes
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/130
<Ralph> +1 to #130
Judy: WFM
<jeff> wfm
Wendy: merging ...
<Judy> wfm
Wendy: wfm
Jeff: I don't object but I
think it's a bit of a strange word
… showing up in the middle
… "Priorities" could be over everything
… perhaps "safety and comfort" ?
Tzviya: that suggestion works for me
Jory: +1 to Jeff's improvement; more descriptive
Judy: "comfort range" might
cause people to think about it in a dismissive way
… we can't make everybody comfortable
Jeff: I simply extracted text from the first sentence
Tzviya: I do like Jeff's suggestion
<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/133
Tzviya: #133
… this is just about whitespace
Wendy: there should not have been a space
Judy: just copyediting!
Tzviya: #134
… we had lots of discussion about this at the @@
last meeting
<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/134/dce89a7...edc0281.html
Judy: it appears the only change is "respect request" changes to 'accommodate participants' needs"
Tzviya: there's a slight nuance
<Judy> +1 to accommodate needs
Tzviya: my initial wording
"request requests for" puts the burden on the person with the need
… "accommodate needs" removes the onus on a particular
person
Judy: Vlad is aiming for the result
<Ralph> +1
Tzviya: merged
Tzviya: back to #131 ...
… Jeff suggested "Safety versus Comfort"
… change from subheading "Priorities" to "Safety vs.
Comfort"
<Ralph> +1
[[
Retaliating, or taking adverse action, against anyone who files a complaint that someone has violated this code of conduct.
3.2.1 Priorities
This Code prioritizes the safety of individuals, particularly those in marginalized communities, over the comfort of others, for example in situations involving:
]]
<Ralph> ^^ is the current diff from the pr
<Ralph> ... the proposal now is just to change the subheading text
Judy: just checking what
just got categorized as just "comfort".... ...
… OK; I'm fine
Tzvya: "versus" or "and" ?
Wendy: "versus" fits better with the first line of that section
Jeff: I'm comfortable with either
Judy: "versus" is closer to what we want
Tzviya: ok, "versus" it is
Wendy: I'll edit and merge
Tzviya: we're closed all the
open pull requests and all the open issues!
… we can pass this on for the final round of approvals
… I'll work on writing something up for Comm to pass
along
Jeff: before we send for AC approval, do we need another CfC?
Ralph: if the chairs and editors believe all this is editorial, I don't think a formal CfC is necessary
Tzviya: I'll confirm with An Qi tomorrow
Ralph: anyone here think any of this is more than editorial? my answer is 'no'
Wendy: also no
Jory: also no
Update on MIT IDHR for ombuds program (Judy, Ralph)
Judy: MIT is now holding
regular appointments again
… I'll propose some times to Ralph
Ralph: nothing new on my part
Judy: we could meet with both offices at the same time
Tzviya: we'll come back to this at the next meeting
Update from Jory
Jory: update on work and
conversations since my presentation to W3T
… we've had a couple of meetings to collect more
feedback from the Team
… thinking about changes to the original plan in light
of current COVID workmode
… I'm hoping to talk here about incorporating
real-world examples
… W3C experiences of conflict
… to incorporate into the framework of conflict
… show by way of example
… 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
… another development is shifting to on-line delivery
and changing the format to something like Big Blue Button
… to allow polling and more interactivity
Jory: interactive components
to make the content more "sticky"
… can we have time in a future meeting to workshop
that together?
Judy: you're thinking pretty
far ahead; maybe we can try to start that brainstorming now?
… you had several conceptual blocks in the Team
training
… we could highlight those blocks and think about what
W3C examples come to mind
<jorydotcom> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ga3qv3EbdFJGGesEmknwNJ72AQvh3ULn6FmvYHN-LyE/edit
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 :)
… in the session I ran I presented framework followed
by examples
… the idea is to do examples first then framework
Jeff: the next meeting is in conflict with the AC meeting
Tzviya: yep
… we probably need to skip that meeting and make 2
June the next meeting
<jeff> Ralph and Judy ++ in advance
Resolution: next meeting will be 2 June
Judy: back to brainstorming
...
… shortly before the Team training PLH was starting to
add W3C examples
… let's look at one of those topics to start
Jory: the examples that came
easiest were at the top;
… basic structural things and default conflict modes
… .what I felt warranted more conversation is in the
escalation model
… we see many different things as a conflict comes
together
… behavior, context from the environment and the
situation
… makes us wonder if this is phase 1 or phase 2
… I wanted to look specifically at phases 2-4
… slides 34 and 35
Judy: our favorite ratholes!
Tzviya: we have to be super-cautious about real-world examples
Jory: absolutely; every example has to be thoroughly scrubbed of identifying information
Judy: looking for recurring conflicts?
Jory: tension is the first
clue we humans have that a conflict is brewing
… the shift from feeling the tension to seeing it play
out in conversation is what we're looking to describe
… a debate that no longer feels that it is using
conflict behaviors that keep it in a productive zone
… e.g. appealing to authority
Jeff: maybe we can talk
about examples to see what is problematic behavior and what is not
… it is standard operating practice that I've seen
where one participant says "we've already shipped and aren't
changing"
… that could be "appeal to higher authority"
… but there's a level of detail underneath that is
highly complex
Tzviya: agree with Jeff;
maybe it helps to use CEPC as a guide
… a nuanced scenario in which people involved
day-to-day perceived bullying but the record wasn't so clear from
the outside
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to mention an example
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to differentiate "timing" and "argumentative"
Jeff: this helps illustrate
why these are so complex
… in a verbal conversation, rapid-fire interruption is
problematic
… [in asynchronous conversation] a rapid response
might not be such a problem
… the content of the response matters more [then]
Judy: I've seen reactions
that I characterize as reflexive dismissal
… rapid-fire electronic communication operates
differently
… and affects how others contribute
Ralph: that's pretty much what I raised my hand to say
Judy: so stage 1 identifiers can be tricky; people might not be listening in the optimum way
Jory: behaviors that are
likely to increase rather than decrease the conflict
… that's what I'm trying to help people understand
Judy: I experienced a case where a well-respected expert was invited to advise a Group and was being dismissed as not informed
Jory: there's a pattern that occurs in debate of denial of another person's experience
Wendy: it's also a matter of tone of response
Jeff: yes; tone is a very
important point
… perhaps it needs to be added to Jory's terminology
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask Jory about positive behaviors in this thread -- and how they fit with your model