– DRAFT –
PWE

tzviya: We are talking about CEPC training
… scheduling
… week of Sept 14th for the pilot
… which is very soon
… who do we need to ask to get on the calendar

CEPC Pilot Training schedule (tentatively week of 14 September)

Judy: I was putting together the invitations
… [going to paste in some text]

<Judy> Invite people to a dry-run of the CEPC training by mid-September. One approach would be...

<Judy> Selective invitations to people who seem particularly interested or likely to offer valuable feedback

<Judy> Invite at least two people from among each of these groups

<Judy> AB

<Judy> AC

<Judy> WG Chairs

Judy: an approach for invitations

<Judy> TF Facilitators

<Judy> CG Chairs

Judy: feedback please!

<Judy> BG Chairs

<Judy> W3M

<Judy> W3C Team

<Judy> PWE CG participants

Judy: dry run of the training in september

<Judy> W3C Evangelists

<Judy> Invited experts

<Judy> Different geographic regions

<Judy> Other DEI aspects

<Ralph> previous: 11-Aug

<Judy> Explain that intention is to listen, and to commit to give feedback

Judy: we've had some conversation about this, suggestion for a dry run
… invite interested parties that could offer feedback
… explain the intention is to listen and give feedback
… try to get at least 1-2 folks from AB, AC, Chairs, staff, W3M, etc.
… CG participants
… IEs, evangelists, a variety of geographic regions
… is that what we want to do?
… then we need to workshop the names

<jeff> +1 to Judy's approach

tzviya: I think that's a good approach
… I am wondering how many people we'd like in the pilot

Judy: I'm happy to see 10-30
… if they are people who are actively willing to participate

tzviya: I think it's a good list
… we can go offline to figure out who, please suggest people if you know some

Ralph: How do we go about getting this on a calendar? Now that I know the proposal for invitees, the calendar is not the W3C homepage
… I don't know if we have another calendar to publish this on, my suggestion is to pick a date and time, and ask me to set up the zoom

tzviya: I don't want to waste time on picking times, but I do want to make sure we have a time that's international friendly (or conscious)

jeff: One way to get the broad representation we want, there are some people who check multiple boxes
… members who are on the AB, and a chair, and international

Judy: I want people to think of their "hats" and not to default to one
… I don't know if doing a doodle poll will work, but going for people with multiple hats might limit the available
… if we go wide we'll get adequate coverage

tzviya: I'll start drafting a list

jeff: If you want a truly international audience, it probably should be during the golden hour
… 9:30-11

Judy: We could do 90 min, run the session then get feedback

Pilot Training agenda

<tzviya> ** Intro by Jeff (3-5 min)

<tzviya> ** CEPC Walkthrough by Tzviya (10 minutes)

<tzviya> ** Exercises by Jory (20 minutes)

<tzviya> ** Closing remarks by Judy (5 minutes)

<tzviya> ** Q&A

tzviya: Here is what we've come up with

Judy: We met yesterday, Jeff up first to intro this, and tzviya and I had been brainstorming some ideas, I'll provide that

tzviya: One thing I discussed is making this understandable and relatable, through scenarios
… it was illuminating to try to figure this out
… I'm going to touch on more than most people will expect
… heavy emphasis on respect in the expected behaviours section
… in unacceptable behaviours, there's a lot to discuss
… a lot of it derives from bullying
… one of the more important sections to explain is the safety vs comfort
… it can be misinterpreted
… I want to make sure it's understood
… the newer sections, like reporting and what to do if you've made a mistake
… there are going to be circumstances where the action is unacceptable, but others where it can be interpreted
… certain circumstances allow for unexpected behaviours, apology and explanation required though
… this CoC allows for situations like this
… and a glossary to explain terms in context
… there will be a plan
… the last part of this is exercises
… a lot of people will expect exercises teaching them what to do in certain situations
… and the CEPC doesn't have those clearly laid out
… Judy suggested this and Jory and I worked on it, how to handle an apology, or address a situation
… we're not going to handle physical situations, as it presents danger
… we came up with 3 scenarios to help people understand CoC violations and how to identify and handle them
… this is a starting point
… there's more work to do
… would you like us to share?

Judy: I would like to hear them and understand how they'd be handled

tzviya: [pasting in]

<tzviya> I chair a WG. I have read through CEPC, and I realize that I violate the microagressions clause at every meeting. Should I fire myself as chair? Should i approach the group to ask for feedback?

<tzviya> * This an appropriate use of CEPC

<tzviya> * Not necessary to step down. It means you're growing

<tzviya> * review the "if you've done something improper" section.

<tzviya> * review after a few weeks and ask for feedback

tzviya: This could be an open discussion, or breakout rooms, or a poll
… any thoughts?

Ralph: For me, one of the values of these exercises is hearing thoughts
… hearing people speak up
… the smaller the group, the more likely it is people will speak
… breakout sessions will allow more voices to share

jeff: I think we should consider the purpose of the CEPC training
… I feel that illustrating what we put into the new CEPC leaves questions could undermine it
… I would prefer to have scenarios with clear answers
… we could have a separate session about the challenges of implementing CEPC
… I worry we could lose focus

Judy: I think that's an interesting question
… when you mention this is the first, it might invite the risk Jeff mentions, but I like it in the training
… standards are hard, there's a lot of discussion, and people learn behaviours from the business world, but if someone does something all the time, but it's against the CEPC, it doesn't mean the CEPC is wrong
… we should fit this in where people can hear it, and feel safe in understanding it
… not pushing back on it
… because of personal experience.
… we might just have to rethink the sequence of it

<tzviya> You said "Jory, you're an idiot who failed to understand the finer principles of web design" in a working group meeting. You recognize that you should not have said that (not just because Jory is awesome). How would you go about apologizing?

<tzviya> The hugger

<tzviya> You have been working closely online with your working group colleagues for 3 months and are excited for your first face to face meeting. Your culture's traditional greeting is an affectionate physical embrace. You greet your co-author on Web 3.0 with such an embrace and she shrinks away. Another colleague reminds you about requesting consent for physical contact. What steps do you take to mend the situation with the your co-author? What will

<tzviya> you do differently next time?

Judy: start with something that's super clear, but I don't think that precludes asking one where someone has to apply it to themselves, and it's more vague

tzviya: These ones are a bit clearer

hober: I was reminded of some internal training we have on workplace behaviour. The training often presents a scenario and then presents possible next actions
… sometimes they're presented as advice from friends, or what's the best step
… what's the "best" thing, not the "right thing"
… when you select one, it'll explain why it's not the best, or is
… as a solo activity it's an excellent priming mechanism
… and then we breakout, to talk about reactions to scenarios, or experiences
… I find the combination of instructor led and then small groups, safe place to express things like "oh I do this"
… it's really helpful
… you want to have the hard cases and the easy ones, this is a human activity, it'll happen, but opening with more straightforward ones so people are ready for the harder ones

adarose: Judy's comments about how people's thoughts, "oh this has never been a problem before" reminds me that some people are not challenged on things they do because of privilege

jeff: I would advocate the scenarios should describe behaviours that are obviously bad, but to a broad audience that they've not realized these are problems
… of the ones that are obviously bad, I would select the ones that happen often in W3C
… I went through the unacceptable behaviours
… I would like to see one about sustained disruptions
… unwelcome comments, microagressions, dogwhistling
… someone who is untrained might not realized these are issues

tzviya: Jory and I thoughts that 3 scenarios are within the time constraint

jeff: If we're going to do microagressions, let's focus on that instead of what a chair should do

<Ralph> +1 to identify unacceptable behaviors that occur frequently in W3C fora as a basis for the first set of cases

Judy: I have a strong feeling that it's important for us to have a scenario where it is severe, and might involve assault
… it is rarer than routine in-group bullying
… but it is often unexpected
… the human tendency for the person experiencing it, or witnessing, is disbelief
… it leads to things like not assisting, or investigating
… I don't want us to be silent
… these things have happened, people tend to freeze
… ignore rather than address
… we should have both, one that's obvious, and one that is more complicated

<Ralph> [I'm hearing "CEPC 101, Intermediate CEPC, ...]

Judy: the guided thought process

tzviya: In terms of microagressions, maybe we need to flesh it out more
… describe a microagressions
… intended to inject a bit of humour (should I fire myself?)
… in terms of including something like assault
… my concern, I do want people to be aware of this
… the CEPC doesn't address the roles and responsibilities
… of members, chairs, and it shouldn't, but the ombuds don't have that either.
… we haven't worked out the procedures in detail

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond

jeff: We do still have a lot to do, but I do feel that leaving some of the scenarios too vague may be counterproductive

Judy: I'm weighing the risks
… of introducing something where we don't have the process fully mapped out, but don't want to see this is as reductionist, only bullying, etc
… we want people to think of all the things that could happen
… lean on the fact that this isn't official, craft something that isn't dependent on procedure, something that gets people thinking about situations that could happen and how to handle them

Ralph: One of our objectives should be to elevate understanding of unacceptable behaviours
… many of the things in the list, are things that occur frequently
… if it is the case that unacceptable behaviours occur, we're not addressing them in the initial trianing
… patronizing language, etc
… we don't need to explicitly acknowledge "this is something we see all the time"
… but bring people's attention to behaviours or language

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to propose an exercise about unacceptable behaviors

Ralph: we're missing some early wins by avoiding this

tzviya: I have an idea
… what if we have questions structured like this

<tzviya> Which of the following is disallowed by CEPC?

<tzviya> calling someone an idiot

<tzviya> revealing someone's private github repo without permission

<tzviya> kissing somoene without consent

<tzviya> hitting a colleague

<tzviya> ...

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to build on Tzviya's list

<Ralph> [jumping the queue]

jeff: It is an interesting approach
… where does it take place
… is important to note
… touching someone without their consent outside of a w3c event is not a CEPC violation

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to offer a thought on venue

Judy: I can share feedback on this
… these kinds of questions have come up
… when trying to explain what W3C is
… we have meetings, formal or informal
… events before, during, or after
… transportation is ad hoc
… we needed to recognize we are bringing people together from a number of contexts, to stay in hotels, etc, its a unique scenario
… I would worry about us conveying strict "this is/isn't w3c"

jeff: I think that the scenarios should avoid corner spaces we don't have answers for
… we have answers for some that aren't obvious

tzviya: We're talking about doing this is in 2 weeks
… when is the next meeting
… when do we hope to get the feedback from this meeting
… we don't have time today to discuss the larger training
… we're working with a very tight schedule

Judy: Some of these points are things we could introduce in Jeff's statement at the start
… to move things in parallel
… I could forward Jeff the bullets and have a side discussion
… we'll still need to discuss next week
… I think we can keep sharpening the scenarios
… give Jeff the change to refine his statement
… doing it ahead of TPAC would be great

tzviya: Meeting on the 8th and 22nd have overlaps

next meeting on 8th or 22nd?

tzviya: I'm inclined to continue with the 8th
… those of us outside of w3m could continue

Judy: Or this time again next week?

tzviya: Next meeting is the 8th, at 10AM.