Meeting minutes
TPAC inclusion fund
<tobie> I just wanted to let you know what I wasn't feeling well and unfortunately don't have an update on the survey yet.
Liz: We have a plan for dealing with the applications, but we have no access to them yet - and we would like to start assessing them - we're ready to go.
… please spread the message to get applications
Léonie: Any applications so far?
Wendy: 5 responses (1 looks empty so 4 for real)
Léonie: When is the deadline?
Liz: think we extended from 15 August. We have 2 weeks to assess so we have a meeting planned, to present shortlist. Looking at Wendy - who should we be talking to, so we can notify applicants in time...
Léonie: Have you seen messages from chairs abut the fund? I haven't much...
chaals: I haven't other than from Léonie
JudyB: I am pretty active in a couple of groups and haven't seen it - will happily encourage chairs to share the message.
Léonie: If we can encourage chairs, that would be good. Other ideas for dissemination? Does W3C plan more?
Wendy: Acknowledging request for access to applications.
… Let's connect offline
Judy: There are not a lot of messages that go to community groups. I knnow people don't like repetition but in this case I think it makes sense to repeat and give good comntext
Léonie: Agreed.
[chaals agrees too]
Jemma: I want to repost messages - where do I look for them?
Léonie: Easiest is to retweet from W3C accounts - or just write your own words
<wseltzer> https://
Wendy: I'll link the tweet we reposted
Update on W3C participant survey
Léonie: I approached NoMensa about taking up an offer to work on questions for a survey. Hope to get together in a couple of weeks and get some starter questions
… Does anyone know of an international vocabulary for describing people - it is easy to find American ones but they are US-centric and don't match what people say or need in other places.'
chaals: Recognise the problem but don't know of any solutions.
Léonie: What if we trigger based on users identifying where they are answering from. Depends on survey platform, and on what vocabularies we have.
Tess: Instead of asking a binary question - are you XYZ - we can put all the labels we can find, and ask people to select whatever they think applies.
Léonie: Yeah...
[chaals thinks it is a helpful approach - there are certainly people who are aware of ways things are described in other places and identify with some of them]
Tess: You can always break things into smaller sets to make a manageable set of questions in a chunk.
<Barbarah> FYI only Interesting Recent Survey and how the did the demographics. - Survey Results: https://
Open Pull Requests…
<tink> https://
PR #165
Chaals: I opened this, but don't remember what it is about. I'll need to look harder at it.
Action: Chaals look at PR #165
PR #166
<tink> https://
Wendy: Adds link to current version
Léonie: Has some cnflicts, seems like a sensible thing to do.
Action: Chaals to resolve conflicts and merge #166
PR #169
<tink> https://
Léonie: add resources to race and feminism section
… Jemma can you look at this?
Action: Jemma to review and merge PR #169
PR $172
Léonie: link to rational and geek feminism wiki
<tink> https://
Tess: This surfaces links to things that are already in comments.
Léonie: Looks useful
Chaals: Agree
Resolution: Merge PR #172
<tink> https://
PR#181
Léonie: Update link to current disciplinary guidelines
… seems pretty straightforward
… propose merge
Chaals: Agree
Resolution: Merge PR #181
<tink> https://
PR#182 Add mediation
Liz: Seems like a good possiblity - thught it was there already, but no.
Chaals: Agree we should merge
Liz: Adds mediation as a possible outcome for disciplinary processes, that can be a far more successful approach in some cases.
Léonie: Seems perfectly sensible
Resolution: Merge PR #182
<tink> https://
PR#183 replace verbal with informal
Judy: Verbal can mean words, and can mean "spoken". Might help to swap to "informal" but wondering if that is strong enough. If someone has been doing something unacceptable,
… is it sufficient to give an informal warning?
… Anything is better than "verbal" but not sure if "informal" is what we really want...
Wendy: Step 3 is official reprimand. Step 1 should be less than that, so I thought "informal warning" was about right. We could ask whether there should be a record…
Judy: If chairs are trying to talk to someone, they are rarely comfortable strating off in writing. I think it makes sense not to require a written record.
… I'm OK with "informal" if others are OK with it.
Chaals: recording is important, think it should be a request to stop doing something.
Léonie: A spoken warning if formal, and to should be noted that it occurred without it being a formal written warning. That may be peculiar to the UK, but think we should think about this
Wseltzer: Do people prefer "initial warning"
chaals: I would prefer something like "recorded request to stop doing something"
Tess: Request sounds a bit weak
Judy: Think this is getting interesting - I see chairs struggle here. Maybe we want to capture that where chairs are alerting people I think it is good to record that something occurred. Request may be light.
… What about a recorded reminder about the CEPC? Triggers going over it with an individual, and clearly triggers the start of a formal procedure (if more is necessary)
… There is a parallel to the requirement for a record in many countries.
Léonie: Think we've had some good discussion, not sure we're ready to close this out. Maybe discuss on the issue a bit more first
chaals: Also, ping chairs list and note that this is about stuff we ask them to do so their opinion is useful
Léonie: Yep, will do
PR #184
Judy: This happened in response to a specific incident. I wanted to encourage "individuals or organisations" and cannot tell if that made it in.
… There are cases where people impugn the motives of an organisation and therefore a representative and we wanted to clarify that this isn't something we think is OK.
Léonie: doesn't add "organisations"
Judy: Does it need discussion?
<Jemma> +1
Judy: There are attacks on both people and orgs
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on organizational aspect of this pull request
Chaals: Think we shoud merge this because it is simple and get another PR on attacks on organisations' motives etc...
Léonie: Looks like we need to resolve conflicts, can update this or add one.
Resolution: Postpone decision on this and add the new point about attacking organisations to it.
Any other business:
Jemma: You can merge the PR I was assigned.
[Meeting adjourned.]