13:57:16 RRSAgent has joined #pwe 13:57:16 logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/07/14-pwe-irc 13:57:18 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:57:19 Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG 13:57:37 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2020Jul/0004.html 13:58:05 coordinates: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-pwe/2020May/0000.html 13:58:30 jeff__ has joined #pwe 13:59:18 tzviya has joined #pwe 13:59:38 -> https://www.w3.org/2020/06/30-pwe-minutes.html previous: 30-June 13:59:57 jorydotcom has joined #pwe 14:00:14 present+ 14:00:30 present+ 14:00:53 Agenda+ Setting the stage 14:01:08 tink has joined #pwe 14:01:10 present+ 14:01:14 Judy has joined #pwe 14:01:14 Agenda+ PWE Roadmap, call for volunteers 14:01:30 present+ Léonie (tink) 14:01:49 present + 14:01:53 Agenda+ meet at virtual tpac? 14:02:00 Agenda+ AOB 14:02:37 present+ Judy 14:03:07 scribe+ 14:04:18 present+ Tzviya 14:04:22 zakim, next item 14:04:22 agendum 1. "Setting the stage" taken up [from Ralph] 14:04:51 present+ AdaRose 14:07:10 We are about to get started on a discussion about Procedures and Ombudspersons. By necessity, we will discuss sensitive topics, stories that may or may not be hypothetical. I have been trying to find a way to make space for people to share these stories about code of conduct violations, mistreatment, abuses, in a way that is comfortable for the story teller and raises awareness for those less familiar with these challenges. Here are some ideas 14:07:10 from myself and others. First and foremost, we must strive to be the group that models strict adherence to the CEPC. We wrote it. We must demonstrate commitment to it. We have not always done that in our meetings. I will highlight 2 sections that are easy to forget about. From the expected behaviors section: 14:07:11 "Have empathy when discussing sensitive issues. Some participants may have experienced (or been subjected to) various forms of violence in their lives, which may cause distress when they are reminded of it. Avoid making jokes or callously mentioning sexual violence such as stalking or sexual assault; in cases when the need arises to discuss these issues and how they affect people - do so with tact and empathy taking into account the gravity of 14:07:11 the situation, and make sure that participants are appropriately warned in advance so they can choose to step out of these discussions." 14:07:11 And in Unaccptable behviors "Microaggressions, which are small comments or questions, either intentional or unintentional, that marginalize people by communicating hostile, derogatory, or negative beliefs." There is a long list of microagressions. 14:07:12 Next, how can we share examples that make people aware of real or realistic scanarios that will require attention? One idea is that we might consider an unminuted meeting during which we invite people to tell stories. It is up to them to decide whether they reveal if the story happpened to them or another person, if they are telling the complete story, or if the story is fictionalized to make a point. Another suggestion is to approach this in 14:07:12 much the same way we do a speciicationm by writing user stories or scenarios. These might or might not be published, but the point is to convey what it can be like in a standards organziation. 14:07:13 q? 14:07:50 q+ 14:08:05 ack jeff__ 14:08:06 q+ 14:08:21 Jeff: thanks for this stage-setting 14:09:07 CEPC draft as is https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/ 14:09:16 ... one small nit; I hope our process is sufficiently robust that it is open for hearing about CoC violations as well as about alleged CoC violations 14:09:27 q- 14:09:39 Tzviya: I want us to recognize that violations might be in other organizations as well as in W3C 14:09:40 ack Ralph 14:10:06 +1 14:10:24 ... this is not meant to be restricting of what is shared 14:10:36 Ralph: thanks also, Tzviya 14:11:14 ... I personally think we should allow unminuted or lightly minuted conversations for the purpose of sharing context for statements that we might want on or off the record 14:11:32 q+ 14:11:39 ack tink 14:12:22 [ -> https://www.w3.org/2020/05/CEPC#unacceptablebehavior "microaggressions" ] 14:13:02 Léonie: there are usually very clear rules about how conversations about violations are handled, typically with supervisors] 14:13:17 q+ 14:13:44 ack Judy 14:13:51 Jory: it's not that we should1 not minute, but if a specific incident is being dealt with then documentation is [handled differently] 14:14:27 Judy: I don't think this group would ever moderate an incident; we're working on policy scope 14:15:03 ... we might discuss hypotheticals, which might be drawn from other circumstances, but not moderating an incident 14:15:08 Tzviya: exactly 14:15:15 https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/Roadmap 14:15:19 zakim, next item 14:15:19 agendum 2. "PWE Roadmap, call for volunteers" taken up [from Ralph] 14:15:31 Tzviya: see ^^ wiki 14:15:43 ... this is a timeline for upcoming work 14:16:12 ... we do expect to need to do another revision; e.g. we have some open issues, but that's not what this roadmap focuses on now 14:16:18 ... it's an aggressive timeline 14:16:45 q+ 14:16:48 ack Judy 14:17:04 ... volunteers, shall we talk through the timeline? shall we break them out into GitHub issues? 14:17:13 Judy: dates are tentative 14:17:30 q+ 14:17:38 ... the text for each task might not be a perfect capture 14:18:01 ... and the assignees are tentative as well 14:18:13 ... we should look at balance between sections 14:18:17 ... some are big chunks of work 14:18:29 ack jeff__ 14:18:33 ... we do want to get at the end a clear idea of dates and volunteers 14:18:39 ... it's not fixed in stone 14:18:57 Jeff: happy to see early in the Roadmap "define W3C Ombuds role" 14:19:07 ... it's critical to define the role 14:19:18 ... and empowerment is an important part of the role 14:19:41 ... what does "interim" mean? There's pre-Legal Entity and post-Legal Entity 14:19:50 q+ 14:19:55 ack Judy 14:19:55 Tzviya: meant to refer to pre-Legal Entity 14:20:02 Jeff: in that case, the word can be dropped 14:20:30 Judy: on several of our calls the question has come up whether to leave the current ombuds in place until the Legal Entity 14:21:06 ... given the structural mismatch between the current ombuds and their other roles in W3C, perhaps we may need a [different] interim set 14:21:22 Jeff: not sure we're disagreeing other than in terminology 14:21:30 q+ to ask about onboarding 14:21:47 ... my interpretation of this task is to define a new ombuds role 14:21:56 ... and set of people who may be in that role until the LE 14:22:02 ack jo 14:22:02 jorydotcom, you wanted to ask about onboarding 14:22:16 jeff_ has joined #pwe 14:22:16 Judy: we've noted some mismatches, though this task does say "role" 14:22:38 q+ 14:22:57 Jory: I'm generally supporting of keeping the current ombuds but it may be informative to select one or two people to on-board so we can learn from the process and from their on-boarding experience 14:23:04 ack me 14:23:13 q+ 14:23:13 ... it could be additve to have some to on-board 14:23:31 Tzviya: we've identified that our current set of ombuds does not align with best practices 14:23:46 ... I agree that the process of on-boarding could be informative 14:24:05 ... the question here is whether we'll appoint new Ombudspeople more than once 14:24:15 ... perhaps this will be a question until the LE is in place 14:24:22 ack tink 14:24:27 ... the role of Ombudsperson may have to change as W3C evolves 14:24:53 Léonie: it's important that the Ombuds who are chosen represent many parts of our community 14:25:12 q+ 14:25:21 ack Judy 14:25:31 ... one of the difficulties I've observed previously is that the Ombuds are also people in authority 14:25:45 Tzviya: you've hit the issue on it's head 14:26:15 Judy: look at the detail [in the wiki]; does this look like the right task description? the right assignees? the right date for how much progress we might make? 14:26:24 ... in the background is the LE spin-out date 14:26:33 ... we really want to make progress on this roadmap 14:26:49 ... we assume the task breakout isn't perfect but is it good enough to make progress 14:26:57 s/gress/gress? 14:27:35 Tzviya: the first task listed, MIT, is specific to the US 14:27:45 q+ 14:27:48 ... but we can look into whether the other Hosts have similar programs 14:27:51 ack jeff_ 14:28:08 Jeff: on that first point, what is the issue? 14:28:28 Judy: this is referring to the MIT Institute resources 14:28:38 ... they can't handle issues in our Membership 14:28:52 ... they can potentially handle issues between some W3C staff and others 14:29:47 Jeff: to clarify, if someone feels that an MIT staff member has violated MIT's code of conduct, they can in certain circumstances raise that to MIT 14:30:37 [My understanding is that if someone has a CoC issue with an MIT staff person violating the MIT CoC (during a W3C event, e.g.), that is outside the scope of the W3C CoC and Procedures. 14:30:57 ] 14:32:26 Tzviya: Jeff is suggesting that we cannot use MIT's ombuds resources for violations specific to the W3C CoC 14:32:57 q+ to clarify 14:33:04 Judy: my understanding is that the resources are not necessarily tied to specific documents 14:33:40 ... this task is to clarify questions we may have about the possibility of MIT's resources being available 14:33:40 q- 14:33:54 Tzviya: we should be researching this 14:34:18 ... the next step [in the wiki] is "Define W3C Ombuds role" 14:34:32 ... please add your name to the wiki if you're interested, or contact me 14:34:52 ... same for "Define selection criteria for W3C Ombuds" 14:35:37 Judy: there's a sequencing thing: 14:36:40 ... [side note] please let us know if the GH format has accessibility issues 14:38:31 ... there are things here that are not logically sequenced if you just read them as actions 14:38:40 ... but the order is when we need them 14:39:12 ... some of the results are important for subsequent tasks 14:39:20 [Tess arrives] 14:39:24 present+ Tess 14:40:10 Tzviya: for those who are participating in IDCG, the selection task connects with the Equitable Review Board task in IDCG 14:40:33 ... I'm not going to put people on the spot here to volunteer 14:40:46 ... please volunteer off-line 14:41:06 ... don't worry if you are feeling underqualified! 14:41:32 Tzviya: the next steps are the investigation program 14:41:51 Judy: there are some parallels between this and the Ombuds Program 14:42:08 ... though we hope that W3C would need to utilize this less frequently 14:43:07 ... the investigation program would be something that, hypothetically, maybe a few times a year is a potential CEPC violation but is complicated and needs some investigation 14:43:32 ... to look at what might have happened 14:43:45 ... thought not something that would have been reported to emergency services at the time 14:44:08 ... MIT recently realized the need for an investigatory office 14:44:27 q+ 14:44:45 ... the first task in the wiki is to help us understand what an Ombuds can, or should, be looking into in their defined role 14:45:00 ... and when an additional resource is needed 14:45:27 ... timelines for conducting investigations and expectations about when a result would be obtained 14:45:39 ... outsourcing to specialized expertise 14:45:53 ... getting legal and practical review of procedures 14:46:12 ... some of the assignments in the wiki parallel other assignments that Ralph and I already agreed to take 14:46:22 q+ 14:46:31 ack jeff_ 14:46:32 ... we're assuming that the current Ombuds might have some practical advice to contribute 14:46:35 ack tzviya 14:46:58 Tzviya: this concept of investigation is very abstract for many of us 14:47:09 ... this may be an area where we need concrete use cases 14:47:21 ... maybe at our next meeting we could do some scenario building 14:47:29 ... any examples need to be fictional 14:47:41 ... maybe Judy and I could build such a fictional scenario for the next meeting 14:48:17 ... and talk about scenarios at the next meeting 14:49:14 Jeff: it may be implicit in "ensuring potential retainer costs are in the LE plan" but we need a task to estimate what the costs might be 14:49:40 ... my expectation is that the costs are high, both because they can take many hours and because the hourly rate for this expertise is high 14:49:57 Judy: agree, and I'll edit in place 14:50:34 Tzviya: I mention scenario building in order to help everyone participate on these calls 14:51:45 Judy: if we do hypotheticals that span the space for the next meeting, I'd like others to help as well 14:52:09 Tzviya: yes; I'll contact some people 14:52:57 Tzviya: the last two sections of the roadmap build understanding of what the Ombuds can do and what training is needed 14:53:16 Jory: I'm continuing to gather feedback on training 14:53:42 ... next Friday I am doing another workshop, for the code land community 14:54:08 ... I plan to use breakouts there to make the material more engaging 14:54:38 ... where I need to understand better is the line between training on the CEPC specifically and training on conflict management or relationship management 14:54:53 ... techniques that would benefit everyone, not just when there is a specific problem 14:55:05 ... PLH wants to do some training on CEPC specifically 14:55:22 ... I'm trying to find the right connections between the general training and that CEPC-specific training 14:55:36 Tzviya: I'm willing to help 14:55:49 ... we've talked about building a resource library 14:56:03 ... we have a list of references; it needs more work 14:56:18 ... I think it would be worthwhile to share this with the Membership 14:56:32 q+ 14:56:37 ack Judy 14:56:39 ... but most importantly we need to look into Ombuds training 14:56:47 Judy: I'm interested in helping with training resources 14:57:07 ... and build a centralized [set of] resources 14:57:36 ... in terms of the CEPC procedures, this may need a lot of discussion 14:57:52 ... and potentially need outside consulting 14:58:06 Tzviya: if you would like edit access to the GH wiki, let me know 14:58:10 zakim, next item 14:58:10 agendum 3. "meet at virtual tpac?" taken up [from Ralph] 14:58:17 +1 to meet at Virtual TPAC 14:58:18 Tzviya: I think we should meet 14:58:28 ... previously we've had joint sessions with IDCG 14:58:32 +1 14:58:33 +1 14:58:36 +1 14:58:37 +1 to meet 14:58:41 +1 14:58:45 +1 14:58:56 +1 14:58:57 Tzviya: this v-TPAC meeting would likely get more attendance 14:59:06 I'll add it to the ID CG agenda for this week. 14:59:07 Jeff: and I assume it would be longer than 1 hour 14:59:39 Tzviya: if you'd like to discuss scenarios, or "user stories", I'm happy to talk about them privately 14:59:57 ... I don't think we ought to publish user stories publicly 15:00:18 ... our goal is to educate ourselves in order to be able to move forward with work on procedures and training 15:00:29 ... if we're to educate others we need to find a different method 15:00:51 ... next meeting will be 28 July at this same time 15:03:08 zakim, end meeting 15:03:08 As of this point the attendees have been jorydotcom, Ralph, jeff__, Léonie, (tink), Judy, Tzviya, AdaRose, Tess 15:03:10 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 15:03:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/07/14-pwe-minutes.html Zakim 15:03:13 I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:03:17 Zakim has left #pwe 15:12:42 chair: Tzviya 16:05:32 Judy has joined #pwe 16:05:50 jeff__ has joined #pwe