PWE 27/8 July

27 July 2021


Barbara, chaals(scribe), hober, Jemma, JudyBrewer, LizLutgendorff, Léonie (tink), WendySeltzer

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://twitter.com/w3c/status/1420008939224281091

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://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2021/

Open Pull Requests…

<tink> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/165

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://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/166

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://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/169

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://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/172

Tess: This surfaces links to things that are already in comments.

Léonie: Looks useful

Chaals: Agree

Resolution: Merge PR #172

<tink> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/181


Léonie: Update link to current disciplinary guidelines
… seems pretty straightforward
… propose merge

Chaals: Agree

Resolution: Merge PR #181

<tink> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/182

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://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/183

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.]

Summary of action items

  1. Chaals look at PR #165
  2. Chaals to resolve conflicts and merge #166
  3. Jemma to review and merge PR #169

Summary of resolutions

  1. Merge PR #172
  2. Merge PR #181
  3. Merge PR #182
  4. Postpone decision on this and add the new point about attacking organisations to it.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/there are people on a zoom//

Succeeded: s/ACTION Chaals/ACTION: Chaals to

Succeeded: i|https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/182|RESOLUTION: Merge PR #181

Succeeded: s/organisatons/organisations

Succeeded: s/mre foirst/more first

Succeeded: s/THink/Think/

Succeeded: s/THat/That

Succeeded: s/CHaals/chaals

Succeeded: s/Scribe: I/chaals: I

Succeeded: s/grojups/groups

Succeeded: s/ay solutions/any solutions/

Succeeded: s/CHaals/Chaals

Succeeded: s/THere/There

Succeeded: s/zakimm, agenda?//

Succeeded: s/rrasgent, make minutes//

Succeeded: s/dorf/dorff

Maybe present: chaals, Judy, JudyB, Liz, Léonie, Tess, Wendy, Wseltzer