Meeting minutes
coordinates: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-pwe/2020May/0000.html
Setting the stage
<tzviya> 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
<tzviya> 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:
<tzviya> "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
<tzviya> the situation, and make sure that participants are appropriately warned in advance so they can choose to step out of these discussions."
<tzviya> 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.
<tzviya> 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
<tzviya> 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 These might or might not be published, but the point is to convey what it can be like in a standards organziation.
Jeff: thanks for this stage-setting
<tzviya> CEPC draft as is https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/
Jeff: 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
Tzviya: I want us to recognize that violations might be in other organizations as well as in W3C
<jorydotcom> +1
Tzviya: this is not meant to be restricting of what is shared
Ralph: thanks also, Tzviya
… 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
<Ralph> [ microaggressions ]
Léonie: there are usually very clear rules about how conversations about violations are handled, typically with supervisors]
Jory: it's not that we should1 not minute, but if a specific incident is being dealt with then documentation is [handled differently]
Judy: I don't think this
group would ever moderate an incident; we're working on policy scope
… we might discuss hypotheticals, which might be drawn
from other circumstances, but not moderating an incident
Tzviya: exactly
PWE Roadmap, call for volunteers
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/Roadmap
Tzviya: see ^^ wiki
… this is a timeline for upcoming work
… 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
… it's an aggressive timeline
… volunteers, shall we talk through the timeline?
shall we break them out into GitHub issues?
Judy: dates are tentative
… the text for each task might not be a perfect
capture
… and the assignees are tentative as well
… we should look at balance between sections
… some are big chunks of work
… we do want to get at the end a clear idea of dates
and volunteers
… it's not fixed in stone
Jeff: happy to see early in
the Roadmap "define W3C Ombuds role"
… it's critical to define the role
… and empowerment is an important part of the role
… what does "interim" mean? There's pre-Legal Entity
and post-Legal Entity
Tzviya: meant to refer to pre-Legal Entity
Jeff: in that case, the word can be dropped
Judy: on several of our
calls the question has come up whether to leave the current ombuds in
place until the Legal Entity
… given the structural mismatch between the current
ombuds and their other roles in W3C, perhaps we may need a
[different] interim set
Jeff: not sure we're
disagreeing other than in terminology
… my interpretation of this task is to define a new
ombuds role
… and set of people who may be in that role until the
LE
<Zakim> jorydotcom, you wanted to ask about onboarding
Judy: we've noted some mismatches, though this task does say "role"
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
… it could be additive to have some to on-board
Tzviya: we've identified
that our current set of ombuds does not align with best practices
… I agree that the process of on-boarding could be
informative
… the question here is whether we'll appoint new
Ombudspeople more than once
… perhaps this will be a question until the LE is in
place
… the role of Ombudsperson may have to change as W3C
evolves
Léonie: it's important that
the Ombuds who are chosen represent many parts of our community
… one of the difficulties I've observed previously is
that the Ombuds are also people in authority
Tzviya: you've hit the issue on it's head
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?
… in the background is the LE spin-out date
… we really want to make progress on this roadmap
… we assume the task breakout isn't perfect but is it
good enough to make progress?
Tzviya: the first task
listed, MIT, is specific to the US
… but we can look into whether the other Hosts have
similar programs
Jeff: on that first point, what is the issue?
Judy: this is referring to
the MIT Institute resources
… they can't handle issues in our Membership
… they can potentially handle issues between some W3C
staff and others
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
<jeff_> [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.
<jeff_> ]
Tzviya: Jeff is suggesting that we cannot use MIT's ombuds resources for violations specific to the W3C CoC
Judy: my understanding is
that the resources are not necessarily tied to specific documents
… this task is to clarify questions we may have about
the possibility of MIT's resources being available
Tzviya: we should be
researching this
… the next step [in the wiki] is "Define W3C Ombuds
role"
… please add your name to the wiki if you're
interested, or contact me
… same for "Define selection criteria for W3C Ombuds"
Judy: there's a sequencing
thing:
… [side note] please let us know if the GH format has
accessibility issues
… there are things here that are not logically
sequenced if you just read them as actions
… but the order is when we need them
… some of the results are important for subsequent
tasks
[Tess arrives]
Tzviya: for those who are
participating in IDCG, the selection task connects with the Equitable
Review Board task in IDCG
… I'm not going to put people on the spot here to
volunteer
… please volunteer off-line
… don't worry if you are feeling under-qualified!
Tzviya: the next steps are the investigation program
Judy: there are some
parallels between this and the Ombuds Program
… though we hope that W3C would need to utilize this
less frequently
… 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
… to look at what might have happened
… thought not something that would have been reported
to emergency services at the time
… MIT recently realized the need for an investigatory
office
… the first task in the wiki is to help us understand
what an Ombuds can, or should, be looking into in their defined role
… and when an additional resource is needed
… timelines for conducting investigations and
expectations about when a result would be obtained
… outsourcing to specialized expertise
… getting legal and practical review of procedures
… some of the assignments in the wiki parallel other
assignments that Ralph and I already agreed to take
… we're assuming that the current Ombuds might have
some practical advice to contribute
Tzviya: this concept of
investigation is very abstract for many of us
… this may be an area where we need concrete use cases
… maybe at our next meeting we could do some scenario
building
… any examples need to be fictional
… maybe Judy and I could build such a fictional
scenario for the next meeting
… and talk about scenarios at the next meeting
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
… 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
Judy: agree, and I'll edit in place
Tzviya: I mention scenario building in order to help everyone participate on these calls
Judy: if we do hypotheticals that span the space for the next meeting, I'd like others to help as well
Tzviya: yes; I'll contact some people
Tzviya: the last two sections of the roadmap build understanding of what the Ombuds can do and what training is needed
Jory: I'm continuing to
gather feedback on training
… next Friday I am doing another workshop, for the
code land community
… I plan to use breakouts there to make the material
more engaging
… where I need to understand better is the line
between training on the CEPC specifically and training on conflict
management or relationship management
… techniques that would benefit everyone, not just
when there is a specific problem
… PLH wants to do some training on CEPC specifically
… I'm trying to find the right connections between the
general training and that CEPC-specific training
Tzviya: I'm willing to help
… we've talked about building a resource library
… we have a list of references; it needs more work
… I think it would be worthwhile to share this with
the Membership
… but most importantly we need to look into Ombuds
training
Judy: I'm interested in
helping with training resources
… and build a centralized [set of] resources
… in terms of the CEPC procedures, this may need a lot
of discussion
… and potentially need outside consulting
Tzviya: if you would like edit access to the GH wiki, let me know
meet at virtual tpac?
<jeff_> +1 to meet at Virtual TPAC
Tzviya: I think we should
meet
… previously we've had joint sessions with IDCG
<wendyreid> +1
<ada> +1
<jorydotcom> +1
<Ralph> +1 to meet
<hober> +1
<Judy> +1
<tink> +1
Tzviya: this v-TPAC meeting would likely get more attendance
<tink> I'll add it to the ID CG agenda for this week.
Jeff: and I assume it would be longer than 1 hour
Tzviya: if you'd like to
discuss scenarios, or "user stories", I'm happy to talk about them
privately
… I don't think we ought to publish user stories
publicly
… our goal is to educate ourselves in order to be able
to move forward with work on procedures and training
… if we're to educate others we need to find a
different method
… next meeting will be 28 July at this same time