– DRAFT –
Positive Work Environment CG

<Ralph> previous 30-March

Discussion on job description for Ombudsman role

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/main/DraftOmbudsJobDescription.md

<Ralph> Ombuds Job Description W3C, draft

tzviya: First topic is the job description for the ombudsperson role
… we haven't had this in the past, but other organizations have described this
… Sheila has helped to put this together
… wanted to open up discussion on this

<Ralph> Ombuds Job Description W3C, draft

Sheila: Happy to provide an overview
… people often don't report problems to any institution because they do not know how, or are concerned about the consequences
… the ombuds program offers a neutral third party
… we list here the main purposes
… peer support
… helping navigate options
… ombuds trained in the formal processes
… help an individual file complaints or just raising to leadership
… pattern recognition and sharing with leadership
… they would not be affiliated with leadership, they share only what they are permitted to
… it's not to replace a grievance process, but to supplement it
… allow people to engage with the process and understand it
… this document outlines the requirements and what we'd be looking for in a candidate
… next steps would be how we choose someone

jeff: To contrast this with the current ombuds program
… I think that today's ombuds, who also happen to be team
… do everything, or try to, that Sheila has laid out
… plus more, they also try to make the right things happen to fix situations
… if action is required
… like suspensions, changing groups, the ombuds can make those recommendations
… they have access to W3M (because many are)
… do we need to mention that in the job description, that they would work with W3M
… it's too much of a neutral sounding board with not enough action

Judy: It's good to see this job description, from my perspective it's much closer to what I've seen in other orgs
… a few things I noticed
… I think an effective ombuds needs to be knowledgable about the processes of the org
… they'd need training in that and interacting with complaint reporters
… would like to see more on that
… the function of being a sounding board is important, listening could be emphasized
… the very first sentence, impartial peer support seemed incongruous to me
… impartial yes, but maybe not peer support, I'd expect someone who is trained, a more elevated position
… a bit of a mismatch, but the rest is on target for what we should be moving towards
… it has been structured like we have it, but that may not be in line with other orgs

Ralph: Thanks Sheila and Tzviya, great start
… I agree with Judy
… and Jeff's concern
… identifying the separate roles of a neutral advice giver
… separating that role from the grievance procedure
… I believe that is best practice, and we should be following it
… if we all agree that separating those roles is best practice
… we should also be starting the draft of what is the right grievance process
… it would be useful to have that in parallel
… our current model is far more on the grievance side than on the providing a forum for listening
… we need both

dka_: I think the job description looks good
… I'm a bit concerned about the term ombudsperson
… I know there's prior art on this
… nobody else in tech uses this term
… it may be a generational thing

<tobie> +1 to Dan's point. I was debating bringing this up too, for the same reasons.

dka_: I think a lot of people who we interact with, won't be familiar with this term
… people understand a code of conduct, and enforcement for codes
… we need to think about how to make this more friendly
… we need to be thinking about making it more approachable as a system
… we don't want to discourage anyone from using the reporting procedures
… especially people coming into this space fresh, like younger technologists

<chaals> [+1 to DKA - it is important to ensure that the reporting systems are friendly, and seen as accessible and supportive to the people who most need them]

<Zakim> tobie, you wanted to +1 Dan's point.

tobie: I don't have a proposed term
… common terms like reporter/reportee
… strongly +1 to dka_

tzviya: I've heard a lot of people trip on this

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to discuss disciplinary action vs ombuds

tzviya: it's worth considering changing it
… I wanted to thank people for raising concerns about the difference between this and the current process
… one of the things we lack right now and need to work on

<Ralph> [ digging into the PWE CG archive: Keep 'Ombuds' name]

<chaals> [-1 to something that says report because it aligns to "traditional hierarchical structure". But while I think ombuds is the correct technical english term, that doesn't mean people will recognise it or that it is a good choice in practice]

tzviya: a clear document for disciplinary action
… we have one, but it's not clear about triggers
… "if you violate" there are consequences
… Léonie pointed out we don't have clear if you do x then y happens
… we have ombuds to help people cope with situations, but we have a CoC but no clear consequences
… current process is that someone goes to an ombudsperson, and they have to figure out what to do, we have quidelines for extreme cases but nothing in the middle

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to further contrast W3C Ombuds historical with Ombuds best practice as seen elsewhere

jeff: Thanks to Judy and Ralph clarifying the general use
… Tzviya for clarifying that we need better procedures
… it gets to the concerns I had
… I wasn't saying that the new ombuds need to do all of the things the current ones do
… we'd replace the existing one, but the functions disappear
… if we introduce new procedures at the same time, my concern evaporates

sheila: Thanks everyone, excited to incorporate the feedback
… especially around training
… I wanted to help clarify the why of the best practice
… I left it out in the intro
… the reason it's encouraged
… the fear of action is why some people don't raise concerns

<dka_> Just to clarify - i am not necessarily trying to argue to do away with "ombuds" as a formal role, but I do think we need be friendlier when we are communicating what this role is when it comes the enforcement procedures in the code of conduct, etc...

sheila: for any number of reasons, it can deter people from reporting
… this gives them an avenue to share, and then get presented their options
… then choose their path
… with the exception of things that are legally required to be reported
… it can feel like a lot of complexity to have multiple channels for reporting
… I've found it to be beneficial
… when they have separate avenues depending on the level of comfort, the actions they want to take
… we can incorporate to the CoC process with elaborating on the paths that can be taken

<dka_> +1 to sheila's comment here - about separate avenues and options available to people and having more or less formal approaches.

sheila: here are the consequences for doing these things

<jeff> +1 sheila

+1

lutgendorff: Couple of things, I agree with changing the name of the ombuds
… in the UK it has a very specific legal meaning
… dispute resolution
… regulators are beholden to their decisions, but it's confusing
… I agree with the separation of powers

<Ralph> [sounds like the US term "Arbitrator" -- a role that has some authority to enforce a solution]

lutgendorff: as a union rep, I was the only one for my department, I always had a large caseload
… multiplied by the number of people in the W3C
… it's very hard on the person
… there needs to be clear what the expectations are for the position
… training on how to manage their caseloads, mental health
… prevent burnout
… going through formal resolutions can be difficult
… should we have an increased focus on mediation?
… especially early on the process

<jeff> [Today's ombuds certainly attempt mediation where possible.]

lutgendorff: how do we manage this?
… it can also be a drain on time/resources

<chaals> [+1 to everything Liz said, which seem to me a collection of really important points]

lutgendorff: it might be worth hiring someone for this

<sheila> +1 to the idea of compensation!

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to suggest a disagreement with Ralph (to my astonishment)

chaals: I certainly think we should document emotional drain
… having worked with people who have done similar work
… many companies have people who do this
… I wanted to disagree with Ralph
… on the idea of having someone you go to for advice, and one for action
… having one person to go to who has the authority to start a grievance procedure
… without revealing details, that person has authority to go to W3C to ask them to consider this an issue, without revealing names/PII
… there's something happening that requires investigation
… or requires action from W3M
… the complainant has authority to pursue the action they want
… in most situations mediation is the first thing you want to try, but there's some cases where that's impossible

<Ralph> [I think Chaals' perspective is not completely inconsistent with the draft]

chaals: I would prefer to see a situation where someone can go to one person they trust and not have to deal with multiple people
… especially when it's a sensitive situation

<lutgendorff> +1 the more actors involved, the more frustrating for people wanting resolution

tzviya: I think we're in more agreement
… if someone goes to an ombudsperson, they can always be the go-between

sheila: I think that's right, a lot of people prefer to have more than one person to go to
… especially when they have existing relationships
… the ombuds can help them through that process
… this is related to training as well

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to clarify we have not been using the term ombudsman, rather ombuds or ombudsperson; and in some countries what Liz describes would fall more in the category of mediation

Judy: If we can get good training and resourcing, that is one of the most important things
… we've specifically have been using ombudsperson to avoid ombudsman

<chaals> [And also +1 to Judy's point that this is a hard job, and training is likely to be pretty important]

Judy: the process you were describing, the broad category of alternative dispute resolution
… there's a spectrum of resources
… if W3C does separate these roles, sounding board vs procedural role, it would be good for us to do so, we need to ensure the mediation piece is resourced directly
… the reasons people often want to approach a neutral party relates to fear of retaliation
… the deterrent to reporting is most often retaliation
… +1 to Sheila

<lutgendorff> (Example Ombuds roles in the UK: https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/, https://www.ombudsman-services.org/ very on the dispute resolution side)

<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to ask about paid roles, making achievable promises

wseltzer: lots of good material in this document
… from the team perspective
… given the amount of labour, emotional and real, should management consider this a paid position
… organizationally a key concern is how do we support the community by making achievable promises
… its important to have a place where people can report and be supported
… give them the means to stop misconduct
… and have a relatively short path to responsiveness

<Zakim> tobie, you wanted to get clarification around the reporting process

tobie: Thanks Sheila, the document you drafted is a great place to start from
… I have a few questions about the process
… I think there's a lot of confusion in the reporting process
… what happens if the reporter is staff?
… that needs to be clarified
… what I'm seeing right now is a lot of confusion about where the parts connect
… this is an important part of the process

tzviya: +1

tink: I had a question for Dan, when you said that in tech ombuds aren't a thing, are they not called that or do not exist?

dka_: I'm saying that communities are socialized to CoC's and enforcement for those, but ombuds sounds very formalized and is not a term used by those communities
… we now have a modern CoC, it feels very wrenching to have a modern document then see a more archaic term like ombud

tink: Is there a typical escalation pathway in the modern CoCs?

dka_: Point of escalation, there's not a term I think

<sheila> great question tobie! where I've seen this done successfully, once the different processes (formal and informal) were defined, they were clearly communicated through avenues like the Code of Conduct etc.

<lutgendorff> I think describing a process, rather than a person may help

dka_: I'm not trying to scrub ombuds out, when we're presenting it to people, we need to make sure they understand

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to clarify Tobie's question about staff raising issues

<lutgendorff> So grievance or whatever process, rather than a perosn

jeff: On tobie's question, most people have interpreted the current program applies to staff, and the new program would too

<Zakim> tobie, you wanted to answer Léonie

tobie: To answer tink, as Dan pointed out, it's usually a mailing list or points to a working group
… it's not put forward as a name, but a path to contacting

<chaals> [A piece of anecdata… from an Australian perspective, the common pattern where an industry has a lot of misbehaviour (banking, telecoms, …) an ombudsperson is appointed with specific responsibility for dealing with problems people face in that industry. That's relatively new, although there has been a generic ombudsperson for dealing with the government for a very long time]

tzviya: My experience is ombuds is academic, it's worth considering what we call this

lutgendorff: Thinking back to the name of the thing, maybe getting hung up on it is bad
… think of it more as a process
… especially if someone is well-known and gets more contacted
… if you're unhappy with someone, contact this email/group
… it's more manageable when it's distributed
… don't have to worry about names just process

sheila: I also love the idea of the name "advocate", Liz just covered what I was going to say about sequencing
… it's not covering the process
… where I've seen success is where they define the formal and informal process

<tobie> +1 to sheila's point.

sheila: we're seeing the gaps in the formal process by looking at the informal one
… the framing of the process separate from people, so putting it in the CoC, trainings, intro materials
… without context it can feel like a complicated process

hober: One of the things that is interesting about W3C is how people come from many backgrounds
… I agree with the sentiment that an approachable name (I like advocate), for those that come to W3C from more established orgs
… we need to explain the terminology

<sheila> I did exactly that when I joined the W3C! searched for "ombuds" in the processes

hober: "advocate" or ombudsperson

<Judy> +1 Tess' point

hober: people will search for what you know

Judy: I think the question of making the term approachable is important
… +1 to Dan and Tess
… I'm always interested in the unintended consequences of naming things
… opposite reaction to advocate, will it completely reframe the process
… swinging people to expectations

<tobie> +1 to Judy's point

<Zakim> tobie, you wanted to mention context matters too.

tobie: I wanted to add something to my earlier point, context matters
… reporting an incident at a conference is different from an incident on a mailing list or email

tzviya: +1

<wendyreid> +1

tzviya: we've talked a lot about the job description, sounds like we have tweaks to make
… we're missing some of the steps
… I've been working on some of those procedures
… we don't have a workflow document for CEPC
… "I have a complaint" what next?
… I get contacted with this a lot
… we need to find a way to outline next steps for people

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about documenting the process

<lutgendorff> Design workshop!

dka_: Is there some way we can without disclosing information, bring together who have done dispute resolutions
… hash out anonymized examples to bring clarity

<lutgendorff> +1 to Daniel

dka_: we're talking about so many things
… confidential session to do this

jeff: I think we can get close to that
… a lot of cases are hard to anonymize
… it's possible to characterize issues that come up based on issues we know of
… hold a small unminuted meeting to discuss this

lutgendorff: Design workshop, when we try to solve a problem
… you want to get someone from the start of a journey to the end
… the paths that can take can be mapped out
… if there's people who are aware of the current process, put together with people interested
… we can work on it

Judy: I like the idea of a design workshop
… identifying the things that come up as stumbling points
… overuse/underuse of confidentiality
… there's a whole set of predictable issues

tzviya: This is great, we can attempt to do this in a meeting slot
… chairs will plan this
… we'll go back to the job description and tweak it
… and other information on the ombuds program
… dka_ you might want to open an issue
… we will not be meeting on the 27th as it overlaps with the AC meeting
… next meeting is May 11
… long way off but lots of time to work on the ombuds program