– DRAFT –
Positive Work Environment Community Group

<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/PWE-Roadmap

Judy: IDCG and PWE decided in December to merge
… though there are still different batches of work we want to move forward
… Tzviya asked me to lead a review of the pending work on the Positive Work Environment

Introductions

Judy: I'm the WAI Director at W3C

Sheila: I work at Bocoup, newly joined the PWE CG
… I have a little bit of experience with ombuds programs in a different context

Ralph: I'm W3C staff, working out of Massachusetts; Architecture & Technology Lead

Nishad: I'm a researcher at Tsukuba University in Japan, working on semantic web
… I was attending meetings of the IDCG

Barbara: I focus a lot on media and entertainment, WebRTC for example
… I work for Intel
… Inclusion and diversity is a key area for me personally and for the company
… I want to see how we can make W3C a more inclusive environment

Jeff: I'm W3C CEO and one of the five who are currently designated as an ombudsperson
… it's been shared with me that Ombuds who are W3C executives could make people uncomfortable raising concerns
… it's not our objective to discourage people
… so I'm interested in working on proposals to have a more inclusive system

<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/PWE-Roadmap

Judy: ^^ GitHub repo for the PWE Roadmap

PWE Roadmap

Judy: the two CGs are merged
… there will be an updates statement of focus; Tzviya and Liz will circulate that
… this meeting is a work orientation and task review session
… some context:
… there's a lot of material on that Roadmap page
… and it does not yet reflect the merger with IDCG
… we'll be looking at the intersection of the work of the two groups
… PWE did a major update to the CEPC last year
… that work is not reflect in this roadmap
… CEPC training is included here; there's a lot more training to do, though that work will largely be taken over by W3C staff and the previous trainers

Judy: a lot of the work here is re-thinking the Ombuds program itself
… Tzviya and I talked about the schedule last week and we moved the dates by 2 quarters
… CEPC Procedures will need thought so there's more structure about how W3C uses the program

Judy: in the Ombuds Program there are 6 tasks listed
… do these look like the right tasks, the right timeframes, and the right people?
… most are tagged with people's names; others may be interested in joining

Jeff: task 1; "ensure the role is limited but not eliminated"
… seems we shouldn't limit before defining the new role

Sheila: sounds like it's saying the current ombuds situation might be clarified
… does the MIT Ombuds have a role?

Judy: MIT does have an Ombuds office but it's not relevant to most of W3C's work as we are multi-host
… the MIT program does not cover the W3C participants outside of MIT
… the PWE CG had decided previously that we in no way want to stop the existing W3C Ombuds program before we have new ones
… but we wanted to not a caution, as ordinarily the Ombuds program is independent of the executives
… is there a better way to word this task to reflect the intent?

<jeff> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#Procedures [page with current Ombuds list]

Judy: we had looked at definitions from the International Ombuds Association

<BarbaraH> Wording suggestion - alignment

Ralph: I think the intent was that we confirm -- and possibly document -- the role the MIT Ombuds office has

Jeff: so we might declare this done

Judy: about dates; will we finish this in Q1?

<jeff> Ralph: I heard Jeff declare it was done

<jeff> ... should document it somewhere

Jeff: the "(possibly other hosts)" is confusing; if the other Hosts are to be queried, it will take longer than Q1

Judy: I'll keep it as Q1 for now

Judy: task 2: "Define interim W3C Ombuds role"
… right now there's not a clear working definition for any of the folks in that role
… the idea here is to write some explanation without waiting for a full Ombuds program to be put in place
… do people still agree with this task?
… the intent of making assignments is that something is brought back here

Jeff: at one level I think this task and the assignees is fine
… from the perspective of developing the right answer, there's not statement of developing requirements
… there's ambiguity of what the role is or is not
… the ombuds have certain limited responsibilities
… it would be useful to have some documentation of what is missing from the current role; where do we need clarifications
… it would help to have people address what's missing
… to clarify what can and cannot be done [now]

Judy: I'm looking for wording to propose a minimal expansion of the task description
… maybe this should be done in conjunction with the current Ombuds

Sheila: mention "include gaps in the existing program"
… there's a fact-finding component to the work

Barbara: there's a positive side too; not only gaps, but also investigating needs and requirements

Judy: I've revised the description; "Define and document interim W3C Ombuds role (identifying needs requirements)"

<BarbaraH> +1

Judy: please don't hesitate to add your name to any task you're interested in!

Judy: task 3: "Define selection criteria and process for W3C Ombuds"
… this is the forward-looking work; what kind of Ombuds program _should_ W3C have
… includes information gathering on what Ombuds programs are recognized in the field
… Tzviya and I met with the International Ombuds Association a while ago
… perhaps we need to add a step to bring back what we learned from those meetings
… is task 3 achievable in 2.5 months?

Sheila: I think it is; I see the work happening in conjunction with defining the role
… it seems feasible to me

Judy: I'll add an item on Tzviya and myself to regather the information we already had so we have a baseline

Jeff: as we redefine the procedures and selection criteria for Ombuds, I want to call to our attention the current description of the Ombuds Program
… we may want to tweak the wording of that description as we change the selection criteria

Judy: that could be part of the "Define selection criteria ..." task

Jeff: OK

Judy: [updates Roadmap]
… still OK with Q1, Sheila?

Sheila: yes

Judy: task "Identify W3C Legal Entity (LE) Ombuds needs"
… W3C may become a separate legal entity in January 2022
… that would result in a more unified management structure
… we may still have distributed Ombuds but they would not be as closely tied into a local [host] management structure
… do you agree this is still a separate task?

Jeff: the LE Ombuds needs I would ask that those responsible change the web site to say this is done in coordination with W3C Legal
… a legal entity has responsibilities and exposures that we don't have today; this should be noted as a separate item
… we should also make sure the Legal Entity Project Management Team is tracking the development of an Ombuds program

Judy: I've met with Bill Judge [LE Project Manager] to make sure he is aware of this work
… I've also talked with Wendy Seltzer [W3C Counsel] to make sure she is also aware
… I'm willing to continue to keep them both updated
… [updates the assignees on "LE Ombuds" task]

Judy: task "Implement the defined selection process for new W3C Ombuds"
… when Tzviya and I talked last week we put the PWE CG as the assignee
… that still may not meet our intent, though there could be an assigned group

Sheila: when we define the Ombuds process and selection criteria that will clarify this task
… add a reference now and come back to it

Jeff: do changes in the Procedures need AC ratification?
… we know that changes in CEPC have to be ratified because CEPC is linked from Process
… CEPC is complemented by Procedures but does not incorporate the Procedures
… if the AC does not need to ratify the Procedures currently, should that be changed?

<jeff> Ralph: I'll attempt a response to Jeff in real-time

<jeff> ... Jeff always asks good questions

<jeff> ... current procedures were not ratified by the AC

<jeff> ... effects our entire community

<jeff> ... some form of AC endorsement should happen

<jeff> ... impacts members representatives

<jeff> ... not clear whether formal W3C Process needs to say that explicitly

<jeff> ... I queued to discuss the timing

<jeff> ... this follows the identification process for Ombuds for LE

<jeff> ... so I read this as "implement LE process"

<jeff> ... question if that is possible before LE

<jeff> ... we need to clarify what we are implementing

<jeff> ... or change dates to post-LE existence

<jeff> ... won't know ombuds candidates until then.

Judy: I'm troubled by two things: the timelines of how we do the work have already changed significantly
… and the LE timeline has also changed at least once
… we might appoint Ombuds and then have to re-do them
… I think our timeline for the Roadmap should be to do what is most efficient
… if we were to do a detailed Procedures document and take that to AC review, it could both improve the program and also slow it down a lot
… I worry about our existing program with its existing gaps
… is it possible to decide which things need AC review at a high level?

Nishad: I'm not ready with comments yet

Barbara: same here
… as the IDCG participants become more aware of this work we may be able to comment more
… I do like this Roadmap; it was easy to follow

Judy: do we need another task to work on the most efficient timelines?
… or is that Business As Usual?
… I'll leave it as BAU

Judy: task "Provide input to W3C LE Ombuds resourcing"
… this partly is the continued conversation with Bill Judge as W3C CFO and also the person managing the LE transition project
… I've raised with him that the Ombuds program may need resourcing
… particularly if we outsource any of the program, e.g. investigations

Judy: task "Plan W3C LE Ombuds selection"
… there's also a missing step "... and put in place"

Barbara: there's also a communications step needed
… to chairs and to W3C Members
… a great program isn't useful if nobody is aware of it

Judy: [revises the page]
… "Plan W3C LE Ombuds selection; put in place; and communicate throughout the organization"
… assigned to PWE CG and W3C Communications

CEPC Procedures

Judy: can we skim this here?
… it's important to consider in parallel with the Ombuds program
… how Ombuds are trained and how our community understands how it works
… would you look at this and be prepared for a similar walkthrough of whether this looks like the right stuff?

Barbara: some of the dates haven't been updates; there's still mention of 2020

Judy: good spotting
… fixing

Barbara: on getting others involved, the CEPC is so valuable and we do many AB and TAG reviews; could we ask our leadership to review this and provide their insights and feedback?

Judy: I think we need an efficiency filter
… do as much as we appropriately can in the CG before additional review cycles on things we're assigning to ourselves
… let's talk about what is the right level to bring in higher-level review

Barbara: and at what phase; are we asking for review of the sausage or ingredients to make the sausage

Judy: I'd appreciate feedback on the parallel set of stuff in a future meeting
… most of the Ombuds work is getting assigned out and we need to figure out when to bring it back
… we can think about opportunities to update the AB at our next meeting

Judy: I'll update Tzviya; she regrets she could not join today

[adjourned]