13:47:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:47:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/06-pwe-irc
13:47:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pwe
13:48:29 <tzviya> Agenda
13:48:29 <tzviya> Agenda+ Revised ombuds job description + selection criteria and interview techniques
13:48:29 <tzviya> Agenda+ Early draft of Disciplinary Procedures
13:48:29 <tzviya> Agenda+ Grants for the Web
13:48:30 <tzviya> Agenda+ Survey updates
13:48:30 <tzviya> Agenda+ AOB
13:56:38 <jeff> jeff has joined #pwe
14:00:03 <tzviya> present+
14:01:54 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #pwe
14:02:03 <Ralph> present+
14:02:12 <wendyreid> scribe+
14:02:16 <wendyreid> present+
14:02:21 <tzviya> regrets+ WendySeltzer
14:02:24 <Ralph> presnet+ Sheila, Tobie, Mallory
14:02:29 <Ralph> s/presnet+ Sheila, Tobie, Mallory//
14:02:32 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
14:02:38 <Ralph> present+ Sheila, Tobie, Mallory
14:04:03 <wendyreid> sheila: Working on the job description for the ombuds role
14:04:04 <sheila> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/180
14:04:16 <wendyreid> ... I just incorporated the edits into the actual job description
14:04:32 <wendyreid> ... main changes were about the relationship between the ombuds role and formal procedures
14:04:44 <wendyreid> ... also a few questions around how folks are prepared for this role
14:04:49 <tzviya> present+ Jeff, Judy
14:04:49 <wendyreid> ... training would be part of this role
14:04:57 <wendyreid> ... and we need to still figure out the nature of the training
14:05:09 <wendyreid> ... hopefully these edits are relatively straightforward and clarify
14:05:11 <Judy> Judy has joined #pwe
14:05:23 <wendyreid> ... just to reiterate, this is meant to complement a formal grievance process
14:05:28 <wendyreid> ... it is not intended to replace it
14:05:29 <Judy> present+
14:05:50 <wendyreid> ... the idea is that the ombud is a neutral third party, someone to talk to, or to assist with the grievance process
14:06:06 <wendyreid> ... the research indicates that people are more likely to report when there are options
14:06:21 <wendyreid> ... the ombuds are meant to help the process run quickly and smoothly
14:06:26 <Ralph> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/180
14:06:30 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:06:50 <wendyreid> Ralph: Thanks, maybe you could expand briefly on the implication of dropping the word peer
14:07:07 <wendyreid> sheila: There were a couple of comments where people found that confusing, uncertainty about the role
14:07:15 <wendyreid> ... the person may not actually be a peer
14:07:36 <wendyreid> ... the people who are engaging as ombuds should not be leadership in the W3C, and I made that language more clear
14:07:38 <wendyreid> Ralph: Thanks
14:07:51 <wendyreid> tzviya: I'm guessing people have not had a chance to review this
14:07:55 <hober> present+
14:07:56 <wendyreid> ... so we'll vote on this later
14:07:59 <wendyreid> ... thank you for the edits
14:08:13 <Ralph> present+ Annette, Hober
14:08:25 <wendyreid> sheila: One of the things we talked about was how to select ombuds
14:08:26 <Ralph> present+ Barbara
14:08:32 <wendyreid> ... what the process would be for vetting them
14:08:47 <wendyreid> ... one of the things we thought was the idea of treating as a proper interview process
14:08:53 <wendyreid> ... treat it like an actual position
14:08:57 <tzviya> regrets+ Jemma
14:09:04 <wendyreid> ... it might be good to have a representative from all of the regions
14:09:09 <wendyreid> ... open to other ideas
14:09:18 <wendyreid> ... people could nominate others or self-nominate
14:09:26 <wendyreid> ... and then there'd be a committee to select
14:09:35 <wendyreid> ... there would be requirements in the job description
14:09:40 <wendyreid> ... and an interview guide
14:09:56 <wendyreid> ... outstanding question is how many people do we want on the committee, and how do we choose the ombuds
14:10:01 <wendyreid> ... we want it to be intentional
14:10:07 <wendyreid> ... it's an important and sensitive role
14:10:21 <wendyreid> ... any thoughts and questions?
14:10:29 <wendyreid> ... I'll put together an interview guide
14:10:43 <tzviya> q?
14:10:46 <wendyreid> tzviya: Any comments?
14:10:54 <wendyreid> ... I guess everyone needs some time to digest
14:10:59 <wendyreid> ... thanks so much Sheila
14:11:05 <Barb_H> Barb_H has joined #PWE
14:11:05 <wendyreid> zakim, next item
14:11:06 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Revised ombuds job description + selection criteria and interview techniques -- taken up [from tzviya]
14:11:15 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/main/CEPCdisciplinary-process.md
14:11:17 <wendyreid> zakim, next item
14:11:17 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, wendyreid
14:12:01 <wendyreid> tzviya: This is based on a disciplinary process from Tetralogical, based on UK standards, some of this doesn't apply to us, like salary
14:12:18 <wendyreid> ... there's a list of open questions based on the questions from Wendy S
14:12:24 <wendyreid> ... I would appreciate feedback here
14:12:30 <wendyreid> ... the current process is really vague
14:12:43 <wendyreid> ... doesn't define what merits discipline and is very tied to the director
14:12:57 <tobie> q+ to point to Contributor Covenant for this: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct/
14:12:58 <wendyreid> ... has a strikes system, but I'd love some suggestions
14:13:04 <tzviya> ack tobie
14:13:04 <Zakim> tobie, you wanted to point to Contributor Covenant for this: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct/
14:13:15 <wendyreid> tobie: I just wanted to say this looks like a good start
14:13:27 <wendyreid> ... reminds me of the contributor covenant
14:13:37 <wendyreid> ... this is used a lot in open source so is releveant
14:13:40 <wendyreid> tzviya: Thanks
14:13:58 <wendyreid> ... does anyone have any feedback on who should be enforcing this
14:14:08 <wendyreid> ... we had this discussion with CEPC
14:14:18 <wendyreid> ... I hesitate putting it in the hands of the director
14:14:27 <Barb_H> Comment - Level of aggrievance?
14:14:30 <wendyreid> ... since we're moving to director-free, we're moving to a board of directors
14:14:38 <wendyreid> ... is this something we ask chairs to do?
14:14:44 <hober> q+
14:14:46 <wendyreid> ... but chairs sometimes are violators as well
14:15:23 <wendyreid> Barb_H: With the grievance, I like the overall strategy, but sometimes the offense is small/medium/large, I worry about using a heavy process for all of them
14:15:31 <wendyreid> ... I wonder if there is a way to score a grievance
14:15:34 <wendyreid> ... minor vs major
14:15:40 <wendyreid> ... I don't have an easy answer
14:15:50 <tzviya> ack hober
14:15:58 <wendyreid> hober: On the question of who enforces
14:16:20 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #pwe
14:16:23 <wendyreid> ... like you mentioned, chairs are also potential violators, but are also responsible for running meetings, where violations can occur
14:16:30 <annette_g> present+
14:16:31 <wendyreid> ... I think there's a real value in swift action
14:16:46 <wendyreid> ... making it clear immediately that something is inappropriate
14:17:22 <wendyreid> ... if someone violates CEPC during a meeting
14:17:27 <tobie> q+ to talk about how Node.js does this (in terms of prevention / upfront work) and OpenJSF (in terms of escalation strategy)
14:17:37 <wendyreid> ... and I as a chair corrects it to keep the meeting running, it's not exactly confidential
14:17:46 <wendyreid> ... it's best if you can to pull them aside
14:17:53 <wendyreid> ... but an hourlong phone call
14:18:12 <wendyreid> ... the important thing there is to correct in a way that says "this is wrong" to everyone
14:18:21 <wendyreid> ... chairs should be part of the solution
14:18:23 <wendyreid> +1
14:18:26 <tzviya> ack tobie
14:18:26 <Zakim> tobie, you wanted to talk about how Node.js does this (in terms of prevention / upfront work) and OpenJSF (in terms of escalation strategy)
14:18:31 <Judy> q+
14:18:43 <wendyreid> tobie: I just wanted to mention about light vs more grave ones
14:18:50 <wendyreid> ... node.js has process on this
14:19:06 <wendyreid> ... removing offensive comments/approaching people before a grievance process
14:19:21 <wendyreid> ... to understand people who are being problematic
14:19:33 <wendyreid> ... work that happens before you enter an enforcement situation
14:19:48 <wendyreid> ... educating people instead of defaulting to punishment
14:20:03 <wendyreid> ... openjsf has an escalation process
14:20:11 <wendyreid> ... every project can handle CoC violations on their own
14:20:17 <wendyreid> ... using whatever resources they have
14:20:29 <wendyreid> ... but there's an escalation strategy to a structure that's owned by the foundation
14:20:46 <tzviya> ack Judy
14:20:47 <wendyreid> ... in case you're not happy with the project-level management or the leader in that project is the one being problematic
14:20:54 <wendyreid> Judy: To comment on the severity issue
14:20:59 <wendyreid> ... I agree it's important
14:21:10 <wendyreid> ... it's very common that most issues fall into a grey zone
14:21:21 <wendyreid> ... it depends on the people in the meeting
14:21:28 <wendyreid> ... I'm interested in the early-stage education approach
14:21:37 <wendyreid> ... I just re-reviewed the CEPC
14:21:51 <wendyreid> ... I was trying to recall if we tried to tackle severity, and I think we dodged it
14:21:57 <wendyreid> ... I think there's work to do in gauging that
14:22:08 <tobie> OpenJSF code of conduct and escalation approach: http://code-of-conduct.openjsf.org/
14:22:09 <hober> q+
14:22:13 <wendyreid> ... it's a thornier one
14:22:13 <tzviya> ack hober
14:22:21 <wendyreid> hober: Something that just occurred to me
14:22:29 <wendyreid> ... if we do make a distinction between minor and major
14:22:38 <wendyreid> ... I think it should be explicitly called out
14:22:47 <wendyreid> ... instead of left to enforcement
14:23:10 <wendyreid> ... we often see rules clearly written, but not enforced for the dominant group, and weaponized against those on the margins
14:23:14 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/#safety-versus-comfort
14:23:25 <tobie> +1 to hober's point.
14:23:29 <wendyreid> ... people who have been around for awhile may get more lenient treatment
14:23:50 <sheila> +1
14:23:55 <wendyreid> ... newcomers may be squashed for being unfamiliar to our process or groups
14:24:01 <wendyreid> ... less room for interpretation
14:24:01 <sheila> q+
14:24:19 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:24:20 <wendyreid> tzviya: I think that's an excellent point, and I think maybe should go into the safety vs comfort section
14:24:34 <wendyreid> sheila: One way to address that point, being explicit about priorities
14:24:40 <wendyreid> ... in the safety vs comfort section
14:24:49 <wendyreid> ... whose safety is prioritized, why, and when
14:25:01 <wendyreid> ... this isn't meant to be a blanket and vague policy
14:25:22 <wendyreid> ... that inevitably will be inequitebly applied
14:25:41 <wendyreid> tzviya: There's enforcement powers and a grievance process
14:25:48 <wendyreid> ... can't be weaponized
14:25:57 <wendyreid> ... there's a difference between annoying and violating CEPC
14:26:45 <wendyreid> ... some of the other questions are what are the relationships to the membership agreement, can this be doctored, what about rapid response
14:27:04 <wendyreid> ... rapid response might be something we're best equipped to respond to
14:27:15 <wendyreid> ... I think that needs to be documented
14:27:36 <wendyreid> ... we have contact emergency services, but what about the fallout
14:27:43 <tobie> q+ to share: https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion
14:27:52 <tzviya> ack to
14:27:52 <Zakim> tobie, you wanted to share: https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion
14:28:07 <wendyreid> tobie: I just wanted to share the mozilla resource which is their work on this
14:28:12 <wendyreid> zakim, next item
14:28:12 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Early draft of Disciplinary Procedures -- taken up [from tzviya]
14:28:18 <wendyreid> zakim, next item
14:28:18 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, wendyreid
14:28:28 <Ralph> zakim, close this item
14:28:28 <Zakim> agendum 2 closed
14:28:29 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:28:29 <Zakim> 3. Grants for the Web [from tzviya]
14:28:31 <Ralph> zakim, next item
14:28:31 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Grants for the Web -- taken up [from tzviya]
14:29:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/06-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:29:33 <wendyreid> jeff: There's an organization called Grants for the Web, a non-profit that gives grants for proposers who would like to experiment on new approaches for web monetization
14:29:37 <wendyreid> ... with privacy in mind
14:29:44 <wendyreid> ... closely affiliated with Coik
14:29:45 <Ralph> -> https://www.grantfortheweb.org/ Grant for the Web
14:29:52 <wendyreid> s/Coik/Coil/
14:30:07 <wendyreid> ... about a year ago they approached W3C
14:30:16 <wendyreid> ... when folks are working on better web monetization
14:30:20 <Ralph> [Founding Collaborators: Coil, Mozilla, Creative Commons]
14:30:37 <wendyreid> ... they would really like their grantees to do it in a way that allows the protocols to become open standards
14:30:46 <wendyreid> ... as unpropriatary as possible
14:31:09 <wendyreid> ... and adhere to our principles of security, accessibility etc
14:31:29 <wendyreid> ... because of vendor neutrality, we can't advocate a position on monetizing the web
14:31:50 <wendyreid> ... we constructed the proposal that allows us to give advice, we would be available to consult
14:32:25 <wendyreid> ... through the lifecycle of the ecosystem, from proposal applications, judging, and that the work is developed with accessibility, i18n in mind
14:32:33 <wendyreid> ... we published our intention to participate
14:32:40 <wendyreid> ... it's going along pretty well
14:32:47 <wendyreid> ... one of the aspects of the proposal
14:33:14 <wendyreid> ... the web monetization approach is focused on diverse content creators who may not be able to monetize their content under the current model
14:33:23 <wendyreid> ... focus on diversity, especially geographic diversity
14:33:30 <wendyreid> ... which aligns with our goals
14:33:40 <wendyreid> ... one of the components of the agreement
14:33:56 <wendyreid> ... if we notice that some of their grantees are working on things that impact standardization
14:34:21 <wendyreid> ... if these grantees are small orgs from underrepresented regions, Grant for the Web would pay for their membership
14:34:31 <wendyreid> ... that's been going pretty well
14:34:33 <Ralph> s/agendum 2 -- Early draft of Disciplinary Procedures -- taken up [from tzviya]//
14:35:18 <wendyreid> ... Grant for the Web set aside 25k for memberships
14:35:31 <wendyreid> ... membership from lower-income regions is under 1k
14:35:43 <jeff> q?
14:35:45 <wendyreid> ... important thing is having more diverse members joining W3C
14:35:50 <Ralph> i/agendum 1 -- Revised ombuds job description + selection criteria and interview techniques -- taken up [from tzviya]/agendum 2 -- Early draft of Disciplinary Procedures -- taken up [from tzviya]/
14:36:06 <wendyreid> tzviya: That leaves us time for survey updates
14:36:08 <Ralph> zakim, next item
14:36:08 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey updates -- taken up [from tzviya]
14:36:15 <Ralph> s/agendum 1 -- Revised ombuds job description + selection criteria and interview techniques -- taken up [from tzviya]//
14:36:21 <wendyreid> tobie: So the initial idea was to have a survey to better understand the composition of our membership
14:36:36 <wendyreid> ... across leadership, chairs, staff, editors
14:36:41 <Ralph> i/sheila: Working on the job description/agendum 1 -- Revised ombuds job description + selection criteria and interview techniques -- taken up [from tzviya]/
14:36:45 <wendyreid> ... OpenJS foundation is looking at the same
14:36:51 <wendyreid> ... advised to look at 2 options
14:36:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/06-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:37:22 <wendyreid> ... essentially because W3C has a direct relationship with everyone involved in standards, OpenJS doesn't, there's GDPR challenges
14:37:34 <Ralph> meeting: PWE/IDCG weekly meeting
14:37:43 <wendyreid> ... the answer seems to be that on the OpenJS side, we can't do it and abide by GDPR
14:37:50 <Ralph> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2021Jul/0000.html
14:37:55 <wendyreid> ... so sharing the upfront cost of sharing questions and things fall through
14:38:10 <wendyreid> ... we'd have to do a completely different system on their side to get the same data
14:38:20 <Ralph> i/sheila: Working on the job description/agendum 1 -- Revised ombuds job description + selection criteria and interview techniques -- taken up [from tzviya]/
14:38:21 <wendyreid> ... the overall cost of one of the solutions would not be split in two
14:38:27 <wendyreid> ... one solution is 25k/year
14:38:31 <wendyreid> ... it's a lot
14:38:57 <wendyreid> ... the fact that if we pursued something like that, we'd not have to pursue GDPR issues
14:39:05 <wendyreid> ... the cheaper option, 3-4l
14:39:14 <wendyreid> s/3-4l/3-4k/
14:39:23 <wendyreid> ... I want to go back to that option and explore it more
14:39:36 <Ralph> i/… thanks so much Sheila/agendum 2 -- Early draft of Disciplinary Procedures -- taken up [from tzviya]/
14:39:44 <wendyreid> tzviya: Can you clarify?
14:39:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/06-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:39:55 <wendyreid> tobie: W3C has a direct relationship with all members and staff
14:40:05 <wendyreid> ... it's ok for us to send a pointer to our mailing list
14:40:11 <wendyreid> ... OpenJS doesn't have this at all
14:40:21 <wendyreid> ... the project maintainers have this kind of relationship
14:40:31 <wendyreid> ... and OpenJS has relationships with the projects
14:40:45 <wendyreid> ... people don't have email relationships over email, mainly github
14:41:04 <wendyreid> ... I couldn't get a clear idea of if extracting emails from Github would be GDPR compliant
14:41:09 <Ralph> i/sheila: Working on the job description/Topic: Revised ombuds job description + selection criteria and interview techniques
14:41:23 <wendyreid> ... wanting to do things ethically made this tricky
14:41:39 <Ralph> i/… thanks so much Sheila/Topic: Early draft of Disciplinary Procedures/
14:41:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/06-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:41:56 <wendyreid> tzviya: If the main method of communication is GitHub, could posting the survey there be a method?
14:42:07 <wendyreid> tobie: Maybe, but hard to know, might be biased
14:42:13 <wendyreid> ... maintainers not all on board
14:42:22 <wendyreid> ... might be biased depending on the project
14:42:40 <wendyreid> tzviya: Sounds like the next steps would be to look into the cheaper option
14:42:51 <wendyreid> tobie: The original set of questions are from the OpenJS
14:42:59 <wendyreid> ... from the StackOverflow survey
14:43:00 <Ralph> i|https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/main/CEPCdisciplinary-process.md|Topic: Early draft of Disciplinary Procedures/
14:43:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/06-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:43:14 <wendyreid> ... and now I have to inquire on the IP status and if we can use them
14:43:21 <wendyreid> ... in short, more complicated
14:43:29 <Barb_H> Question - Did we want to ask a question to Stackoverflow or Slashdata? Slashdata is survey now.
14:43:37 <wendyreid> tzviya: Could we get an update in 2 weeks?
14:43:40 <wendyreid> tobie: Yes
14:44:08 <wendyreid> Barb_H: Slashdata is now just executing their survey to be available in the fall
14:44:17 <wendyreid> ... is there any way we can influence the type of questions that get asked
14:44:24 <wendyreid> ... that meet our needs around standards
14:44:59 <wendyreid> ... is there any way we can ask a question to be answered in that survey
14:45:04 <wendyreid> tobie: I haven't thought about it
14:45:12 <wendyreid> ... the idea was more to use the same questions they're using
14:45:23 <wendyreid> ... because they were good and had been worked on and thoughtful
14:45:41 <wendyreid> ... and also they implicitly had a way to compare our community to the broader community
14:45:58 <wendyreid> ... point out things that are better/worse than the general community
14:46:09 <wendyreid> Barb_H: The way we look at it, primary vs secondary
14:46:43 <wendyreid> ... primary, alignment with the SO questions, but I think there are secondary surveys out there where we might find some insights
14:47:08 <wendyreid> ... the other day, the game group found a survey for game developers, asking what APIs they use
14:47:23 <wendyreid> ... we want to know what different communities are doing
14:47:46 <wendyreid> ... could we view or influence the secondary level of surveys
14:48:09 <wendyreid> tzviya: The only thing that might be similar is the WebAIM user data survey
14:48:20 <tobie> q+ to mention MDN survey
14:48:51 <wendyreid> Barb_H: The gaming one was interesting, asking for APIs, what environments
14:48:51 <tzviya> ack tobie
14:48:51 <Zakim> tobie, you wanted to mention MDN survey
14:48:56 <wendyreid> tobie: There's the MDN survey too
14:49:08 <wendyreid> ... there's options there as well
14:49:22 <wendyreid> ... the scope is similar
14:49:24 <tzviya> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/07/mdn-web-developer-designer-survey/
14:49:38 <wendyreid> tzviya: I think the MDN survey has only come out once?
14:50:29 <wendyreid> ... we can look at different surveys and see whats out there, and Tobie's proposla
14:50:37 <wendyreid> tobie: Will look and report back
14:50:44 <Barb_H> Comment - Game Survey - Interesting  reading - https://gamedevjs.com/survey/2021/
14:50:46 <wendyreid> tzviya: AOB?
14:51:02 <wendyreid> ... thanks everyone!
14:51:18 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
14:51:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been tzviya, Ralph, wendyreid, Sheila, Tobie, Mallory, Jeff, Judy, hober, Annette, Barbara, annette_g
14:51:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
14:51:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/06-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
14:51:23 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:51:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
14:52:40 <tobie> Found the moderation resources: https://github.com/nodejs/admin/blob/main/Moderation-Policy.md
14:53:05 <tobie> tzviya: ^ what's the best way to share those with the group?
14:54:38 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
14:54:38 <RRSAgent> I see no action items