Meeting minutes
Review Roadmap
<tzviya> https://
Tzviya: it's been a while since
we discussed our ^^ roadmap
… I suspect we're off-schedule
… Judy and I have taken up some of these
… looking at the role of Ombuds, redefining that role
… let's take a look a this and try to reassess the
timeline
… we had an aggressive schedule, not considering how
TPAC would impact us
Judy: I had been focusing
more on CEPC training
… after the TPAC training we did I haven't been able
to come back to Ombuds procedures and trainings until yesterday
… I think we've slipped 1 or 2 quarters
… most of the stuff that is Q3 or Q4 2020 should be Q1
and Q2 2021
… Ralph and I have some items that align with this
chart
… I'm guessing end of Q2 or more realistic, start of
Q3
… looking at the Ombuds program I'm equally worried
about the CEPC Procedures
… I feel we need focused discusions in this group to
dig into those next sessions
… we've had some good discussion on CEPC training; I
think we can take that work off-line
… but we need discussion here on Ombuds
Tzviya: I agree; the
Procedures and Ombuds Program go hand-in-hand
… I'm wondering if there are fresh ideas about how to
approach this
Sheila: I have some
experience with ombuds program
… I co-chaired an I&D group in a previous job and
wrote an ombuds job description
… I'd be happy to take a look at this
Tzviya: thanks!
… the CEPC training we did was fine; we need to more
of it
… it's worth this group looking at the roadmap and
discussing whether this is [still] the right set of tasks
… feel free to edit the wiki off-line
… Judy, please edit the dates in the wiki
Judy: I have permission to slip the dates by 2 quarters?
Tzviya: yes
Jeff: regarding procedures
for the roadmap,
… if someone violates CEPC right now the DIrector has
authority to suspend participation
… in [northern hemisphere] summer, W3M cleared up the
procedures
… when this was published some chairs asked for
clarity on what chairs could do
… we never had clarity on that, as the Director had
never delegated to chairs
… I suggest we add a line in the roadmap to identify
what chairs are able to do in terms of procedures under CEPC
… and fill out who should be responsible for that and
by when
Judy: maybe that should be a
broader task to identify any existing procedures?
… we have micro-procedures in several places
… chairs can do some things that Team Contacts do
Jeff: #3 is determining the types of procedures needed
Tzviya: maybe these are GitHub issues that are editorial
Judy: a suggestion: for the
Ombuds section of the Roadmap and the Procedures section, as we're in
early December and may not have many more meetings this month I'd like
to see if we can get a little more momentum in those sections
… confirm who is working on those so we know the first
few tasks have assignees
… note that there's one item for which no one is
assigned yet
Tzviya: by all means, anyone
here please volunteer
… I'm delaying the request for volunteers until we
talk more about merging with IDCG
Should PWE merge with IDCG
Tzviya: I've been speaking with the co-chairs of the IDCG about whether the two groups should merge
<tzviya> https://
Tzviya: see ^^ IDCG minutes from 1-Dec
Tzviya: we've had dwindling
participation in PWE CG
… probably because we completed our most significant
task: publishing CEPC
… our overall goal to make W3C more positive and
inclusive is the same for PWE and IDCG
… though the tasks are different
… IDCG is working on the actions that come from the
BLM [proposed] statement, building an Equity Review Board
… things like that
… since the membership largely overlaps and we're at
points in both groups where things are shifting a bit
… chair changes
… we thought it might be a good time to merge the
groups
… we can still have task forces
… there were no objections in the IDCG meeting; nearly
unanimous
Sheila: I saw a question
around workload
… whether there would be enough bandwidth to do the
work of both groups if we combine them
… was there a resolution?
Tzviya: it's a great
question
… mostly it's the same people doing the work
… my feeling is that by combining we might be able to
share more easily
Ralph: I have not had the
time to participate in IDCG.
… I've been reading the minutes
… combining would help me
… understand inclusion and diversity and how CEPC can
help support
… no objection
… mildly in favor
Judy: I'd be interested in
hearing from everyone here
… from my perspective there is clearly strongly shared
interest and strongly overlapping participation
… two things I worry about were already mentioned: I'm
not sure if I'm fully convinced yet]
… because the types of work are very different, to
make progress on Ombuds and Procedures will be very focused and
exacting and requires some common background, I worry that work will
slow down even more
… but maybe a task force would allow it to proceed
… in IDCG I worry that the progress on BLM would get
further subsumed
[what Judy said]
Tess: I think it makes sense to merge the groups
Tzviya: I understand the
concerns about the progress of the Ombuds program
… I think if we merge the groups we have potential to
attract more people to help with the Ombuds program
Tess: if the groups do merge, can we use the PWE meeting schedule and change the meeting time when the US changes clocks?
Tzviya: my intention is to
send a doodle poll about meeting time
… the IDCG meeting time also doesn't work well for me
… probably the schedule will shift to something more
friendly to the US West Coast
Sheila: merging makes sense
to me
… one thing that would be nice to think about is the
benefit of having two groups from a recruiting perspective is that
it provides diverse ways for people to engage
… I think that can be addressed in how the group is
pitched once the merged group is formed
… how we communicate the different work streams within
it
… there are a few different ways that people can
engage depending on their interests and background
Tzivya: we need a more
formal charter too, to know what our goals are and what we hope to
accomplish
… I've been talking with another volunteer to help
draft that
Judy: I'm interested in what
Sheila was raising in terms of naming
… and how we might see some of the more detailed work
progressing
… whether we're recreating the same thing with an
additional level of bureaucracy
Tzviya: poll -- should PWE merge with IDCG?
<Ralph> +1
<tzviya> +1
<sheila> +1
<Judy> 0
<Jeff> 0
<hober> +1
Tzviya: it looks like we
will be merging; neither group had objections
… I'll be discussing with the co-chairs of IDCG;
they're stepping down but have some volunteers who have expressed
interest
AOB
Ombuds Program
Judy: let's look at the
roadmap together
… Ralph and I had a task to look at the current MIT
Ombuds
… I think the intention is to give more structure to
that
… if there's time in the next meeting we should try to
prepare something
… can we prepare a discussion for the next meeting?
… queue up what needs discussion in this group?
Tzviya: I'm willing to help
Judy: what about "define
selection criteria for W3C Ombuds"? I'm thinking a pump-priming
activity here
… is there a reason to have the two tasks: define the
role and define the selection criteria as separate?
Sheila: they'll feed into each other a lot but will probably be sequenced
Jeff: the big question with
the role is whether we envision it to be roughly what the role is
today or drastically different
… there's a wide range of what Ombuds do in various
organizations
… our current Ombuds role is, I think, best described
as "facilitiator"
… if we're going to continue that role then it's fine
for the discussions to proceed in parallel
… but if we're thinking of a drastically amped-up
version of what Ombuds do, that will impact the selection criteria
Tzivya: right now we don't
have any document on the role of an Ombuds
… whether we have an assumed understanding or not, we
need to document it
… some of us understand what the role is today but we
need to document it, even if it doesn't change
… Sheila and I are volunteering to do that
… the selection criteria will flow out of that
Judy: let's leave these as
distinct tasks; that way we'll be able to sequence them
… my thoughts of defining the role is a bit more than
documenting the current role
… thanks for working on this
Judy: on identifying the LE
Ombuds needs ...
… I've had some preliminary discussions with Wendy
Seltzer on this
… once we spin out from MIT would we need an
investigational program
… I could resume that discussion with WSeltzer and
Ralph
… happy for others to join us
… I've also had some discussions with WSeltzer and
Bill Judge about LE resourcing; we've identified that as an open
question
… I'm happy to move forward on those unless someone
else has suggestions
Tzviya: happy to help
Judy: thanks; I'll update
the wiki
… I won't attempt to get volunteers for "select new
W3C Ombuds" and "plan W3C LE Ombuds selection"
Judy: under CEPC Procedures
...
… can we identify volunteers for the first one,
"gather procedures from other organizations"?
Tzviya: we've gathered tons
of information about other codes of conduct
… finding out how they are put into practice is
harder; that information doesn't tend to be public
… ideas on how to capture that?
Judy: the procedures are
much more back-office stuff; maybe the only way we'll get it is to
have conversations with the organizations
… and they might be reluctant to share it for various
reasons
… so this might require developing trust relationships
to get some sets that are shareable
Tzviya: there's a Code of
Conduct community in social media; I can start there and do some
research
… for the legal review task we need to plan to hire an
outside expert
Judy: I know some people; it's possible to find them
Next Meeting
Tzviya: per the calendar,
our next meeting would be 22 December
… I'm guessing a lot of people won't be available then
… watch the public-pwe list for email
… I'm guessing that there will continue to be two
mailing lists for a couple of months
… stay safe everyone
[adjourned]