26 October 2021


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

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


[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


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