13:49:11 RRSAgent has joined #pwe 13:49:11 logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/06/16-pwe-irc 13:49:17 Zakim has joined #pwe 13:49:36 Meeting: PWE 13:49:45 Date: 2016-06-16 13:49:49 Chair: tzviya 13:55:02 zakim, prepare meeting 13:55:02 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:55:03 Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG 13:55:29 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2020Jun/0004.html 13:55:50 -> https://www.w3.org/2020/06/02-pwe-minutes.html previous 2-June 13:58:37 present+ 13:59:11 present+ 14:00:02 regrets+ Jory 14:00:13 wendyreid has joined #pwe 14:00:39 present+ WendyReid 14:01:00 present+ Tess 14:01:19 present+ Judy 14:01:22 present+ 14:01:47 scribe+ 14:02:41 jeff_ has joined #pwe 14:03:33 jeff has joined #pwe 14:04:04 jeff_ has joined #pwe 14:04:10 present+ 14:05:15 Present+ Barbara Hochgesang 14:05:52 topic: Introductions 14:05:57 Judy has joined #pwe 14:06:08 Tzviya: we have some who haven't previously joined this call; let's introduce ourselves 14:06:34 Tzviya: I'm from Wiley 14:07:03 Barbara: I'm from Intel, focusing on Media and Entertainment, Web Graphics, Machine Learning on the Web, and Web Assembly 14:08:05 Ralph: I'm W3C staff, working from Massachusetts 14:08:23 Wendy: I'm from Rakuten Kobo, working from Toronto on Publishing@W3C 14:09:00 Judy: I'm W3C staff, based in Cambridge MA, interested in Positive Work Enviornment in W3C for a very long time 14:09:14 ... excited that the updated CEPC is getting close to completing Member review 14:09:46 Jeff: I'm W3C CEO and one of the current Ombuds, and work from my backyard when its 20C and no humidity 14:10:40 Tess: I'm from Apple, on the TAG, in too many WGs, miss the best donuts in the world in Cambridge 14:11:04 https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/Roadmap 14:11:20 topic: ombuds roadmap 14:11:29 Tzviya: Judy and I put together a ^^ draft roadmap 14:11:39 Tess: sorry for coining "ombuddys" a few years ago :) 14:11:57 q+ to suggest some adds to the roadmap 14:12:17 Tzviya: many of the W3C Ombuds are also in executive positions 14:12:31 q+ 14:12:34 ... current best practice recommends against that; it can lead to uncomfortable situations 14:12:55 ... people might respond in the interests of the organization rather than in the interest of the individual 14:13:03 ... whether or not that is the case, it can lead to concerns 14:13:24 ... as you can see in the draft roadmap, it's a multi-tiered process 14:13:56 Judy: we started with an aim to have much more detail but grew concerned that we'd overwhelm people 14:14:01 ... hopefully these are simple steps 14:14:17 ... we don't think we're anywhere near ready to switch Ombuds folk 14:14:36 ... 4 areas we need to think about with discrete effort 14:14:51 ... the Ombuds themselves, and we need to learn more about the MIT Ombuds 14:15:12 ... there are many types of issues; some around employees and if they are MiT employees they would fit within the MIT program 14:16:01 ... if the issue is between Members or between a Member and an Invited Expert, probably the MIT Ombuds would decline to be involved 14:16:33 ... when W3C becomes a legal entity we have the option to use other Ombuds 14:16:35 ack jeff_ 14:16:35 jeff_, you wanted to suggest some adds to the roadmap 14:16:53 q+ jeff 14:17:24 ... and plan for some selection or re-selection of ombuds, perhaps plan an interim re-selection before becoming a legal entity 14:17:39 ... we see this as a limited but necessary support function 14:18:04 ... on a given year there may be nothing or may be multiple needs for an Ombuds investigation 14:18:27 ... there are a few steps listed under Investigation Program 14:18:43 ... under CEPC Procedures 14:18:51 ... there may be need for mediation 14:19:18 ... if there's been a more severe incident somebody might want a sounding board 14:19:29 ... what does an ombuds do in such a case? 14:19:45 ... W3C doesn't have "back office" procedures at the moment 14:19:59 ... if we formalize those we need review from people with experience and possible legal review as well 14:20:21 ... Jory has started a training program on conflict de-escalation 14:20:32 ... we need other training as well 14:20:39 ... including training for the ombuds 14:20:54 ... and what kind of repetition do we need to keep the community up to date 14:21:12 ack je 14:21:26 Jeff: looking through the list, I think several things need to be more spelled-out 14:21:56 q+ to respond to jeff_ 14:22:00 ... first, we have to write-up the role of the ombudsperson; this is often misunderstood 14:22:10 ... in my view the role is principally facilitation 14:22:27 ... often people come to an ombuds expecting them to fix some injustice that has happened to them 14:22:40 ... we need a better write-up on what the ombuds is actually supposed to do 14:22:50 ... second, we need more on communications 14:23:12 ... in the current CEPC there is scant text on communication 14:23:19 ... third, selection of ombuds 14:23:28 ... the roadmap lists steps for the legal entity 14:23:50 ... but before that I imagine we'd open the Ombudspeople; they might not be the current Ombuds, perhaps not all even Team 14:24:05 ... we need to write down some selection criteria and who does the selection; Team, AB, ?? 14:24:28 ... fourth, the relationship between the ombuds, Team, chairs, so forth 14:24:33 ... tease out those relationships 14:24:46 ... these might already be mentioned in the roadmap but need more detail 14:24:57 Tzviya: all are implied in the roadmap but we could spell them out in detail 14:25:06 ... on role of ombuds and procedures ... 14:25:28 .... these go hand-in-hand but we need to clarify the extent of the role of the ombuds before we work on procedures 14:25:29 q+ 14:25:35 ... at least the role of the existing ombuds 14:25:49 ... we don't have clear selection criteria nor training right now 14:26:02 ... I'll edit the document to clarify after this meeting 14:26:14 ... we absolutely do need to understand exactly what an ombuds can and cannot do 14:26:17 ack tzviya 14:26:17 tzviya, you wanted to respond to jeff_ 14:26:22 ack ju 14:26:28 ... and what the criteria should be for selecting them 14:26:35 Judy: we don't yet know the sequence 14:26:43 ... hopefully we can do many of these items in parallel 14:27:01 ... Tzviya and I have been working on this document together 14:27:26 ... perhaps we can update the set of ombuds in the short term 14:27:44 ... but we need to get training to a state that it's not currently 14:27:54 ... happy to incorporate comments on timing 14:28:10 Barbara: are we clear when somebody should go to an Ombuds? 14:28:15 ... did we provide any level of clarity? 14:28:24 q+ 14:28:24 ... we're defining a role but what problem are they solving? 14:29:21 hober has joined #pwe 14:29:26 ack ju 14:29:29 ... will we make it clear to the community when to go to an ombuds? 14:29:39 Judy: two of the ombuds are on this call; Jeff and Ralph 14:29:48 q+ 14:29:59 ... my understanding is that W3C wants the Ombuds to be people to whom anyone in the community can reach out 14:30:09 Barb_H has joined #PWE 14:30:09 ... when there are conflicts or potentially something that fits into CEPC 14:30:16 ... this is assumed by default to be a confidential process 14:30:43 +1 Judy 14:30:50 ... depending on the issue and how it evolves it could be that the person against whom there is a conflict might become aware 14:30:50 https://www.w3.org/2020/05/CEPC 14:30:56 ... but it is a confidential process 14:31:12 Tzviya: the proposed CEPC revision makes extensive reference to Ombuds 14:31:32 ... but we are anecdotally aware that people do approach others who are not Ombudspersons 14:31:55 ... there's no problem with that but we're trying to improve the Ombuds program so the Ombuds are better able to handle the situations that do arise 14:32:19 Barbara: the high level is: there are high level infractions and "micro agression" lower levels 14:32:34 q+ 14:32:39 .. do the Ombuds take the higher ones or is there an opportunity for them to take lower-level ones as the first place to go? 14:32:44 ack me 14:32:47 ack wendyreid 14:32:47 q+ 14:32:49 Tzviya: they take whatever comes to them 14:33:07 Wendy: perhaps Barbara's question is related to our previous discussion on the role of chairs 14:33:21 ... we've not yet hashed out enough where chairs fall in the escalation process 14:33:36 ... we might want to create a slightly better model for how issues can be raised, who to go to if you have an issue 14:33:54 ack Judy 14:33:55 ... Ombuds are always an option but perhaps someone might want to go to a chair first for advice 14:34:26 Judy: with regard to "high level" infractions, because W3C is an international organization it does get complicated 14:34:48 ... there are potential types of incidents that should go to local public safety and not to an Ombuds 14:35:06 ... but that can be difficult for someone who is not familiar with the local services 14:35:12 q+ to thank Wendy 14:35:31 ... so it is possible that an Ombuds might need to provide assistance in accessing the local [public safety] services 14:35:53 ... we also have to be careful about assuming who is a "safe person" to talk to in specific situations 14:36:05 ... we should think about this and not just make assumptions 14:36:51 Tzviya: on contacting local law enforcement, in our document on "emergency situations" / "rapid response", we did have occasion to need to write this 14:37:04 ... we included how to contact local law enforcement 14:37:41 q+ 14:37:51 Ralph: we made a very small start with a list of "9-1-1" numbers for various contries 14:38:07 q+ to briefly suggest that the question of contacting local law enforcement may be less straightforward than it appears 14:38:14 Tzviya: we could work more on this rapid response document 14:38:21 ... I'm interested in feedback on that 14:38:37 ... the other immediate need we have is vetting and training of our ombudspeople 14:38:37 ack jeff_ 14:38:37 jeff_, you wanted to thank Wendy 14:38:48 Agree - Is there a way to keep the policy fresh versus a major update? 14:38:57 Jeff: on the issue of updating 9-1-1 information, 14:39:07 ... any changes we make to CEPC require Member review 14:39:40 ... I would prefer that anything such as updating 9-1-1 emergency procedures be assigned to the Team and later linked from CEPC 14:39:50 Tzviya: right now that's in the Procedures pages and assigned to W3M 14:40:04 Jeff: I'm not sure that is accurate; CEPC links to the Procedures document 14:40:39 ... to the extent that the Membership have to agree to CEPC and that document links to others, it's not obvious to me that we can update the Procedures document without going back to the Membership 14:40:44 ... I'm just talking procedurally 14:40:57 Jeff: thanks to Wendy for reminding us that the chairs play a very important role 14:41:14 ... #41 notes that we need to better define the role of chairs w.r.t. PWE 14:41:20 ... we decided to defer that 14:41:32 ... a lot of the CEPC complaints that arise are due to chair actions 14:42:10 ... they act on issues that arise in their group and sometimes that turns into a complaint from someone who felt offended 14:42:29 ack Judy 14:42:29 Judy, you wanted to briefly suggest that the question of contacting local law enforcement may be less straightforward than it appears 14:42:30 ... I hope we can get back to #41 and describe the role of chairs more 14:43:03 Judy: re: the emergency info, this can become complicated 14:43:45 ... given issues of personal safety based on different identity issues and what can happen in different cultures or jurisdictions, we might want to be very careful about what we say an Ombuds can do 14:43:54 ... I hope we won't try to do that quickly 14:44:07 Judy: about timeline; what are people's thoughts about sequencing? 14:44:21 Chair role - we asking them to be intentional and active includer? If so they need training. 14:44:37 -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/41 Role of Chairs #41 14:44:45 q+ to suggest a time-box approach 14:44:56 Tzviya: is it the case that we might be able to use MIT Ombuds for incidents that occur outside the US? 14:45:19 Judy: I believe geography doesn't matter as much as proximity to an MIT employee 14:45:47 ... if the incident involved an MIT employee, my understanding is that this does fall within MIT's Ombuds jurisdiction 14:46:08 ... but if the individuals are not MIT employees then MIT might not get involved 14:46:24 Tzviya: can the MIT Ombuds get MIT training? 14:46:27 ack jeff_ 14:46:27 jeff_, you wanted to suggest a time-box approach 14:46:40 Jeff; I don't recall Ombuds training 14:47:00 ... there was MIT training on sexual harassment and we mandated several years ago that all the Team should take it 14:47:24 ... however when we wanted to mandate that new staff take it we discovered the MIT course was no longer available [outside MIT] 14:47:40 Jeff: to the point that we have some employees and a very large number of volunteers, 14:47:57 ... it would be useful for someone to figure out a reasonable time to get some of this done 14:48:00 ... perhaps a year 14:48:13 ... and bucket what we can expect to get done in a year and what might take longer 14:48:33 ... that discussion would allow us to think about what we can afford to let take longer 14:48:37 q+ to suggest trying quarterly buckets 14:48:43 ... I'd like to have a broad view of the timing of the entire roadmap 14:48:43 ack Judy 14:48:43 Judy, you wanted to suggest trying quarterly buckets 14:49:09 Judy: Tzviya and I had committed to trying to attach a straw timing to the items in the roadmap 14:49:22 ... I'm interested in seeing what might fit into quarterly buckets 14:49:34 ... I think we need more granularity for that to make sense 14:50:00 ... even if progress at a high level is on a yearly scale 14:50:34 Tzviya: another question that comes up repeatedly is training and the possibility of outsourcing 14:50:58 ... I understand it's hard to get commitment to fund especially when we don't have cost estimates 14:51:19 ... is there appetite for outsourcing training? is it worth doing the work to get cost estimates? 14:51:37 Jeff: we could have that conversation here or separately; either is OK with me 14:51:44 ... what would we outsource? 14:51:58 ... the design of the ombuds program -- how we want it to work -- is very specific to us 14:52:00 Roadmap is a great communication tool for your management, leadership and the community. W3C is good at it for technology view. The media roadmap is my favorite. 14:52:04 q+ 14:52:07 ... it's important that our process is designed by our community 14:52:15 ... this is not a financial pont 14:52:22 s/pont/point/ 14:52:31 q+ to suggest some potential costs to plan for, even if limited 14:52:52 ack Judy 14:52:52 Judy, you wanted to suggest some potential costs to plan for, even if limited 14:52:59 ... when we tried to explain the W3C context to the MIT Ombuds they noted that they "know who the MIT community is" but that the W3C community could be anyone in the world 14:53:11 ... we need discuss our context more 14:53:30 Judy: I'd expect we'd have some things that we would need to fund 14:53:50 ... we need input from, or at least review, from people with practical experience 14:54:02 ... we might not have that in the Team but MIT might be willing to advise 14:54:09 q+ to provide additional guidance on outsourcing 14:54:13 ... and we might need to consult with someone who specializes in this 14:54:21 ... there may be training we'd want to outsource 14:54:41 ... or a limited investigational retainer that we'd hope not to have to use a lot but that we'd want to line up 14:54:50 ack je 14:54:50 jeff_, you wanted to provide additional guidance on outsourcing 14:54:51 ... some project planning 14:55:27 Jeff: establishing a postive work environment is very important to us, even strategic 14:55:52 ... you may have seen our announcement last week that W3C is putting 5k USD into our TPAC Diversity Fund 14:56:10 ... in general, for the right topic we're willing to put money into it 14:56:14 q+ 14:56:25 Tzviya: next steps: Judy and I will refine the roadmap, adding some dates 14:56:31 ... volunteers welcome 14:56:43 ack Judy 14:56:44 ... as we get deeper into it we'll need more help 14:56:51 I am will to help. 14:58:03 Barbara: I've seen around the world that we can no longer sit on the sideline, so I want to help 14:58:14 ... my perspective is "a person from the community" 14:58:22 ... your relationship with the leadership is fabulous 14:58:41 ... I'm trying to give a view from the community; a single voice 14:58:59 ... on the roadmap, please! W3C has a heritage of some of the best roadmaps I've seen 14:59:21 W3C's Inclusion and Diversity CG is meeting on Thursday https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-idcg/2020Jun/0044.html 14:59:23 ... what's there, what's being worked, what are future plans -- W3C is excellent at roadmaps; let's take that from technology into this topic 14:59:44 Tzviya: see ^^ IDCG meeting announcement 15:00:08 Tess: happy to be jumping into this conversation 15:00:29 topic: Next Meeting 15:00:39 Tzviya: we're scheduled to meet next on 30 June at the same time 15:00:48 ... hope to have more info on the roadmap by then 15:00:58 Need to drop 15:01:13 [adjourned] 15:01:22 zakim, end meeting 15:01:22 As of this point the attendees have been tzviya, Ralph, WendyReid, Tess, Judy, jeff_, Barbara, Hochgesang 15:01:24 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 15:01:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/06/16-pwe-minutes.html Zakim 15:01:27 I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:01:32 Zakim has left #pwe 15:02:12 rrsagent, bye 15:02:12 I see no action items