W3C

– DRAFT –
PWE

26 October 2021

Attendees

Present
David Fazio, Jennie Delisi, John Kirkwood, Julie Rawe, Lisa Seeman, Liz Lutgendorff, Rachael Montgomery, Rain Michaels, Ralph Swick, Wendy Reid
Regrets
Judy Brewer, Léonie Watson, Tobie Langel
Chair
Tzviya
Scribe
Ralph

Meeting minutes

<tzviya> Date: 2021-10-26

<Rain> Planning document from COGA for joint session: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/TPAC_2021_initial_planning#Positive_Working_Environments_.28PWE.29

<LisaSeemanKest_> (also see https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Other_resources

previous 24 August

Introductions

[around the squares]

Overview of COGA work

Rain: Cognitive is the largest disability category in the world
… last week's panel discussion was recorded; refer to it
… we want people to be aware of ways to bring better cognitive a11y into your work
… pleased to be meeting with PWE
… [slides]
… there is a broad range of diagnoses and needs

<Fazio> mental health triggers often have physical consequences also

Rain: needs can be situational or temporary; working memory, executive function, stress, ...
… COGA = Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Task Force
… challenges: many complex and varied types of disabilities
… range of common myths and biases
… these myths can show up in personas from other Working Groups
… COGA is a task force under both APA WG and AGWG
… and link with the COGA CG

Lisa: we've run into two problems working with well-meaning WGs
… people would be upset to learn they've been offensive
… for example, there was a while where one of the groups that we were participating in and their consensus process would cite minutes and GitHub threads
… you'd have to open many windows and track many threads to be able to vote on a resolution
… this caused may to not vote
… and some others assumed they did not care
… people tried to vote but weren't able to
… so actual consensus didn't exist

<Rain> Presentation that Jennie put together: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UIQu4RqklIlFjEuDPh3bZgMaeqexsRW32ite37AOhoA/edit#slide=id.p

Lisa: people can be tagged in ways that they don't realize they have been tagged [in an issue]
… Jennie put together a slide deck and we have a document

<LisaSeemanKest_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RbjN7fLaucSzVfTqQdoCHoX3GFEoyHz2iiz3ap9Yd6k/edit#heading=h.bosqf05ss78k

Lisa: we've reached out to several groups to discuss this diversity issue

<julierawe> Lisa and Rain, someone at the 2nd "How to work with COGA" session asked us to put together a one-page summary of Jennie's deck

<Rain> Inclusive groups working document (sharing again in case this helps Ralph access); https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RbjN7fLaucSzVfTqQdoCHoX3GFEoyHz2iiz3ap9Yd6k/edit#

Lisa: the work we are doing on inclusion is part of the initiative to make sure people can participate and vote
… we acknowledged there needs to be a balance on what chairs and facilitators are expected to do
… but a lot of the things don't actually take longer

<Jennie> Per julierawe's point - I have the individual's name if helpful

Lisa: and those that do take longer allow input from a wider consensus group
… to write web specs we need input from a broader community

<Rain> Thanks Jennie and Julie: Jennie had mentioned this to me and it is on our list to bring to a COGA meeting. It's a perfect idea.

Lisa: e.g. you might think you're making a spec for improved security but if it results in people writing down passwords and taping them to their desk that actually makes things less secure
… with the ubiquity of the web we absolutely have to have specifications that include all user groups
… if everyone cannot participate then we won't have that input

Connections between COGA and PWE

Tzviya: thanks for proposing this joint meeting

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc

Tzviya: the CEPC has a lot of overlap with what is in your document
… I want to think about what could be added
… we're not yet proposing a CEPC update but we do have an editor's draft

<tzviya> https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/

Tzviya: the editor's draft has some material that's not yet in the adopted CEPC
… feel free to open more issues in GitHub
… be aware that there was a lot of discussion about every line in CEPC
… also we can consider whether there are things that could be improved in W3C Process
… e.g. maybe there's a better way to do calls for consensus

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if there are Process changes to make


<LisaSeemanKest_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RbjN7fLaucSzVfTqQdoCHoX3GFEoyHz2iiz3ap9Yd6k/edit?usp=sharing

<Rain> COGA Work and Content Usable overview: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YeqvkeE6xbh8yAAUvliA6v4MqbLsj28dFxzRcMyGTz0/edit#slide=id.gf9322f43b0_0_26

Julie: in the CEPC it looks like in Expected Behavior there are some bullet points that the COGA work dives deeply into
… how to write email subject lines, how to do notifications in GitHub
… the How to work with COGA session dives deeply into specifics on how to work together

Wendy: there are parallels here; PWE and IDCG have discussed chairs training a lot
… we've wanted to do specific targeted training on best practices for running meetings
… it sounds like there is a lot of material in the COGA docs that would be good for both experienced chairs and new chairs

Tzviya: we've also talked about training on conflict de-escalation

Rain: interesting that you mention conflict de-escalation

<Jennie> PDF of presentation is located at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Other_resources

Rain: that is especially relevant in this situation
… one thing that often happens is that some COGA needs are very different from the needs of those participants who are using screen readers

<Fazio> w3c participation is very intimidating

Rain: two parties who are trying to understand each other's needs may end up thinking the other is being dismissive of their needs
… this can escalate and does become a challenge for us
… I'm very interested in the conflict de-escalation material
… and how to recognize misunderstandings before they become a conflict

Lisa: it's going to be important to define the difference between accommodation and where things are possible or easy
… there are some things you might not be able to do but there are ways of saying that
… e.g. "you need to be able to read every email"
… there's a process of finding out whether someone can or can't do something
… there are good ways to come to a conclusion on what someone can do

Tzviya: much is about speaking with people respectfully

Jennie: see our wiki page with links to our presentations
… let us know if you don't have access
… as I was preparing slides, and as I was joining W3C groups, the cognitive load of learning new systems and how many of them are used at the same time

<tzviya> +1 to Jennie

Jennie: people who aren't familiar with international meeting times and how they might shift during the year
… I was excited to hear mention of the possibility of adding to Process
… consider how we measure and consider workload of group participants

<wendyreid> +1 to Jennie

Jennie: my recommendation, based on how we prepared for this TPAC, is that there's a lot of process learning to do

<tzviya> Process Community Group https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/

Jennie: e.g. as Invited Experts, John and I cannot access some of the material that others in the Group can access
… there are hoops that people have to jump through that add to the cognitive load
… Lisa shared some important pieces in last week's recorded presentations
… systematically looking at where the stories apply could be part of the process review

<Jennie> * Thanks Tzviya!

Rain: a similar issue to what Jennie said: in addition to the cognitive load it's important to acknowledge and include in the support materials that truly being inclusive is a lot of work
… it can help all of us, and especially the chairs, to rethink our expectations of ourselves and our groups to allow for enough time for us to be effective
… for example, there was such a heavy workload in organizing TPAC meetings that mistakes were made and some people weren't able to participate
… thanks for offering your email address to help with posting GitHub issues
… to report feedback, we probably won't be able to use GitHub issues
… we'll probably create a Google Doc and share it
… that creates additional work for someone to open GitHub issues

Julie: on chair training, I joined a meeting where the chair was trying to be inclusive but the way I was invited to participate made me feel disoriented
… chair training on how to make people feel comfortable would really help

Tzviya: great comment
… in TPAC 2020 we did some CEPC training using scenarios

Lisa: W3C is inherently very conducive to "come as you are"
… if you have something to give, then you are welcome
… a place where many things, such as age, don't matter
… but there are still things that need a bit of help

Next Steps

Tzviya: on next steps; every group PWE has talked with has asked for training
… I see a lot of material from COGA that we can use
… what are the COGA's next steps that you'd like to see?

Rain: we'll look at some of the documents you've shared and create a document in response
… this may take several months
… one thing I'd like to see is to know what things PWE/IDCG is working on
… e.g. if you're working on a training, how can we help?
… maybe someone who can be a liaison between PWE/IDCG and COGA

Lisa: one of the next steps is to determine how we can work together
… sometimes we dive in deeply and our documents might be on tooling issues in a lot of detail, with practical things one can do
… we might spend 3 months making comments that are at the wrong level
… a pre-step might be to get the granularity right
… where do you want comments? where are they productive?
… where do you want links for further resources?
… that might help to identify places where we can work together optimally
… and discuss the right mechanism; liaison? joint subgroup? to work together

Tzviya: there will be an updated CEPC at some point
… the CG concluded it's not a good idea to update such policy documents often
… unless there's a grave issue that needs to be addressed we felt it should sit for a few years
… on granularity, CEPC is broad-brushed
… we have general concepts, e.g. about harassment, but missed a few specific things
… we try to back up the language we use based on materials that exist
… we're not likely to add something very specific that affects just one group of people
… we're in the process of looking at and revising W3C's Ombuds procedure
… the Ombuds procedure is out of date
… and we don't have a well-defined discipline process; we're revamping that as well
… PWE CG has been responsible for the Inclusion Fund and working with W3M
… Judy Brewer and Léonie Watson are very involved in both PWE/IDCG and WAI
… so we have pretty active representation from WAI, though not necessarily COGA

Rain: Lisa, Rachael, and I have been connecting with Judy regarding tooling and communication processes
… we'll mention to her that we met in this joint session and there may be strong opportunities to work together

Tzviya: definitely we'll work with you to establish this relationship

Lisa: the next steps are what?
… what's on my to-do- list?

Tzviya: looking at the CEPC to see if there's anything really missing
… and talking about the training

Lisa: you'd like us to review CEPC? but comments might take a few years to appear in a revision?

Tzviya: we don't have a planned schedule but if there's something really glaring we could consider an update sooner

Lisa: are you interested in linking to our resources?

Tzviya: we have a library on Zotero

<tzviya> https://www.zotero.org/groups/2864452/w3c_pwe/library

Tzviya: usually Zotero links to published documents
… Zotero is our archive of documents
… if you'd like to add something, please let us know
… and the Process CG is also open to anyone, if you think there are Process things that need to be updated

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).