Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2021-02-16
<tzviya> Agenda
tzviya: Welcome everyone
Chair intros
tzviya: We're going to do a quick introduction of the chairs
[introductions happen!]
tzviya: We have a few people who weren't here last week as well
[more introductions]
tzviya: Let's move on
Charter review
tzviya: Last time we showed you the simple charter we put together
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: Jeff suggested we add an item about how chairs are selected
… we do need to update the website to include the new chairs
… we're different from many community groups in that we're not producing specifications
… we are incubating ideas
… these are some goals and we'll come back to it another time
… feedback is welcome
jeff: This isn't an ordinary community group, it is critical to the environment of W3C
… we should surface it to groups like W3M and the AB for comment once its ready.
tzviya: I don't want to add unneccessary things to this, make sure it's flexible
change in wording “political views” https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/162
tzviya: We had a proposal to tweak some wording in one of the glossary definitions
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: there's a lengthy dicussion in GH issue 162
… I've linked to the proposal itself
… it's removing two words from one of the definitions
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: PR 163
… it was brought up by a case where political views impacted the environment of a group
<Ralph> [dropping "political view" from the list in the glossary for "Discrimination"]
tzviya: political views are discussed nowhere else in CEPC, and probably should not be included in this definition
tink: This was actually a comment from Liz when we were discussing this recently
… essentially, the likely problems experienced by keeping this phrase as is would be covered by the other clauses in the CEPC
… changing the text will not change anything as the sitations are alredy covered
jeff: I see political views is mentioned in discrimination but not prejudice
tzviya: It was a typo
jeff: Ok
tzviya: What we're discussing is PR 163
… removing the two words from the definitions
… we could vote on that
Judy: Procedural question, apologies
… there's this CEPC that went through a lot of review
… got attached to process
… if we're debating one-off changes
… what happens with the changes?
… accumulate until we have enough to make a substantive update
… is it going to go live right away?
tzviya: It would not be in our best interest to constantly update the document
… it's helpful to have a stable policy
… I discussed this with WendyS
… what would trigger a change
… the things that would force an update could be an important major change, an accumulation of issues, etc
… we could have an editor's draft
… likely not going to update it for at least a year
… for people that view this as important, knowing an edit is pending could be helpful
jeff: I'm neutral on the change
… I would probably not have added it if it weren't there
… should we leave morals in there, it is similar to political view
tzviya: No one has mentioned it
liz: Is morals covering religious beliefs as well as non-religious ones. In the UK we use the phrase "belief" to cover both
tzviya: That's possible
… if that's the case I'd prefer to change it to beliefsd
jeff: I agree with Liz, but could political views be considered a belief
tzviya: Let's do a vote
<jeff> 0
<chaals> +1 to merge PR #163
<Ralph> +1 to drop "political view"
<edent> +1
tzviya: +1 if you agree to remove, -1 if you do not
<hober> +1
+!
+1
<tink> +1 to removing the phrase.
<Judy> 0
<wseltzer> +1
<tobie> +1
<tzviya> +1
<Nishad> 0
<Liz_L> +1
<BarbH> 0
tzviya: resolved to approve PR 163
jeff: So further to Judy's question, do we have a place to keep the editor's draft
tzviya: It works the same way all things in respec work
… the TR equivalent is at the CEPC link, the editor's draft will live in github
jeff: I just want to make sure the editor's are aware
tink: You can't live-edit the TR
Ralph: The official published version is not on TR, but tink's comment applies
<Ralph> [the official published version is https://
Ralph: the version online points to the ED, but editing the github doesn't affect it
nomination guidance https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/18
tzviya: Return to the discussion on nomination guidance
… The chairs discussed the suggestion to members
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: link to our suggestions
… we found that the wording was very passive, not imperative
… found it odd that it was living on the patent policy page
… any other thoughts about this statement?
wseltzer: Question about the page it appears on, it's the join page for a group
… the impression of a patent policy page comes from a header on the page
… we should be able to express that these are all of the terms to join a group
tzviya: That is where the impression comes from
… if I'm on the join page, I'm already planning to join
… maybe it needs to be somewhere earlier
wseltzer: I'll take it back to look for somewhere to put it
Judy: I wanted to make sure we're clear on what has gone out to the AC
… looking back to the GH tracking
… this is what's already been sent to the AC
… "[text in issue]"
… what are we proposing to do here?
<Ralph> [Judy quotes from
tzviya: Good question
<Ralph> We have added the following guidance to our groups join pages [3] and the calls for participation we send:
<Ralph> “Please consider diversity when proposing people to participate
<Ralph> in W3C groups. Representation from a wider group of people,
<Ralph> especially people from under-represented groups, is vital for
<Ralph> creating web standards that meet the needs of the wider web
<Ralph> community.”
<Ralph> -- https://
<Ralph> ]]
jeff: We sent this statement out
Ralph: On 21 january
Judy: So it's out, now we have to look at how we amplify it
jeff: We shared it, but if there's better language, we should update
tzviya: It's not an imperative
… the language could be stronger
… sending it out once but doesn't send much of a message
… having it part fo the member introductions
… part of the onboarding docs
jeff: I agree that having W3C encouraging this as an imperative, it's just a start
… we can change the language
… I'm personally very interested in a member pledge
… we find language where we encourage members to sign up to something
… as long as W3C team saying things and members are passive bystanders, the impact is minimal
… if members sign up to it, it creates a different kind of momentum
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to note that there was a suggestion for a pledge, do we want to discuss that?
Judy: On that same point, I had seen discussion in GH or the mailing list about the pledge
… it might amplify the suggestion that the AC recieved
… this is being proposed as an optional pledge that member orgs could sign on to
… to make a committment to be held accountable
… I would welcome feedback
<jeff>
BarbH: High level point, besides asking for a pledge, we need to highlight the benefits of diversity
… if we go down the stick route, we don't show the carrot
… tracking
… open source had communicated their diversity numbers, they were showcasing their numbers were lower than general tech's numbers
… is there a way for us to track
… how are we moving the needle forward
… could we work with other communities like open source
tzviya: What are other's thoughts? I'm interested in the carrot, what is the benefit to staying once you are here
… some of the things we've not been good at, making this a space where people can air their concerns
… one of the original goals of IDCG was to gather data and report on it
tink: Yes, it was one of the first things suggested we do
… there was some resistance to it on the mailing list
… but I think Barb makes a good point
… aiming to do something is all well and good, but without proof we can't show we're heading the right direction
… I advocate for more carrot than stick
… I've spent many years in the accessibility profession, we used the stick far too much with industry, but instead encouraging them provided different results
… matter of professional pride
… making people feel bad doesn't get them very far
tobie: I wanted to point out that we're starting a DEI effort in the OpenJS foundation
… how do we do that in an open, respectful way
… testing on StackOverflow
… happy to bring back how that is going for us
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about an inclusivity pledge
BarbH: stackoverflow/data does a good job of that as well
tzviya: If you have links, please share
… maybe take a different view of the pledge
… pledging to commit members of my staff is challening
… what about a W3C pledge to be more inclusive
… ensuring existing members are promising to create a better environment
… we want this to be a positive work environment
… a place where everyone can work comfortably
Judy: I think that's interesting
… there might be a place for both
… pledges can have pitfalls, but I think that W3C commits to being more welcoming and inclusive, it's potentially helpful
… I continue to be interested in how our membership can contribute to increasing our diversity
… it encourages members to do more
… pledges don't have to be used as a stick
… a voluntary way to step up and commit to do more
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to express some skepticism about pledges as a thing.
<BarbH> SlashData - State of Developer Nation - https://
chaals: I have limited experience with pledges
… none of it positive
… somewhere between neutral and negative
… I'm concerned about asking people to make pledges
… puting them in a position where they feel like they must
… especially if W3C is not willing to do it first
… the idea of a pledge is a serious committment
… it's a stressful position to put people in
… I'm nervous, and I would not do it
jeff: +1 to part of what chaals said, whatever we come up with, W3C should be first in line
… I think that some of this discussion has gotten a bit sideways because of the wording
… the pledge is not necessarily about actions, but intent
… we maybe need a new word
… we find a way to allow members/companies/individuals to put some skin in the game
… this is important to us as well
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on a slight tangent re: gender pronouns
<Ralph> 17-Nov-2020 IDCG minutes re "Pronouns in W3C bio"
Ralph: Related question about diversity, the team had asked on collecting pronouns in the user record, so that it could be referenced
… I wanted to point to that conversation
… there's not an official issue, but the team would like your feedback
… it has infrastructure impacts
tzviya: Going back to the pledge for a moment
<Ralph> s/an official issue/a GitHub open issue/
tzviya: the bottom line is that we want some concrete actions
… forcing an org to commit to specific things can be difficult
… I'm not sure how we want to deal with this issue
… if we want to close the issue since nomination guidance has been updated
… I'm comfortable with closing this issue in favour of opening a new, more specific issue
PWE reading list - call for assistance with formatting
tzviya: Right now the reading list is in the PWE repo
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: we had some volunteers to help update this
… the goal was having 3 people vetting the list
… Lola has done some edits
… the categories are vague and confusing
… the formatting is also confusing
… update it to APA formatting
… do we have any volunteers to help with that?
… once that's done, Lola can add her new additions
<chaals> [If there is a template to follow, I will volunteer to do some work on it]
<Ralph> APA format for academic papers and essays
<Judy> [JB Notes that APA formatting can be done automatically by apps such as Zotero]
<chaals> [+1 to using a tool designed for the job.]
<Judy> +1 Jemma!
Jemma: There's an automated way to do it with a generator, but there's concerns of copyright, I can look into it
<Ralph> [I think W3C spec editors use a different specref database and it would be good to not diverge unnecessarily]
Judy: Would be delighted if someone can take it up
BarbH: Just on a high level, the concept is great
… lead with race but not the inclusion value
… why aren't we leading with articles on inclusion
tzviya: Anything can be added, and Lola and the others will review, but there are a lot of resources
BarbH: It's not just the articles, but the marketing of the list
… it feels like we should be leading with inclusion
<chaals> [Ralph: Noted, but I think that there may be a significant difference between the functionality of SpecRef and other tools designed to maintain bibliographies for a reading list…]
Jemma: I like Barb's suggestion, we could have categories and assign members to each
… build lists that way
tzviya: we definitely need more articles
… leading with inclusion
… specref is probably not the right tool
… since these aren't specs
AOB
<tobie> [If folks start referencing these documents in specs, I'm fine adding them to Specref; also, I'm considering adding the ability to format Specref output to various citing formats if that proves useful to people]
tzviya: At our next meeting in 2 weeks, we'll be focusing on the ombuds program
… if there's anything you'd like us to focus on, please be in touch
… I hope to be able to take some time soon to work on organizing the GH repos
… then we can organize the agendas there
… there was some discussion on issue 17
tobie: I took the Linux foundation course
… it's aimed at speakers
… but also people in the community
… better than expected but a bit dated
<tzviya> https://
tobie: I do not know if the software is accessible
… if it is, then I'd recommend
… I would like it to be more enticing and interesting!
tzviya: Anyone who knows how to make one that's enticing, please do (or find one)
tzviya: Thanks everyone!