Meeting minutes
Ombuds update
Sheila: Tzviya and I talked
last week and aligned on next steps
… one thing we need is clarity on the budget, both for
training and stipends for those who serve in the ombuds role
… I estimate ~ $12k training budget and ~ $14k for
ombuds stipend
… 4 hours/training, 2 trainings/year
… ~ $1500/hour
… I estimate 70 hours/year of work for ombuds
… including training, meeting with other ombuds
… $3500 / ombuds
… how does this feel to you?
Ralph: that # hours is plausible across 4 Ombuds
Tzviya: next steps, bring
this budget to W3M
… we should present the case as non-optional
… this is part of a code of conduct
… people have said that it's great that we have a CoC,
but we need enforcement
<cwilso> +1
<Ralph> +1
Tzviya: I understand that budgets are tight
Sheila: would it be helpful if I put together a pitch, including options for funding and why we think this is essential?
<Ralph> +1
Tzviya: absolutely
Dispute Resolution draft
DRAFT for W3C dispute resolution (3)
Liz: I softened the language
about "will"
… added some language about feeling safe
… added some items about suspension / removal
… added some language about confidentiality
… e.g. if someone is banned, people have to know that
… where it's important for the functioning of W3C,
people need to know
Chris: looks really good
… my only question is "3 months of the incident taking
place"
… I understand why there is no statute of limitations
… my mental model is "the sooner the better" in trying
to address things
<BarbaraH> +1
Chris: I worry that people will take "3 months" as an opportunity to delay
Liz: clock starts at the
moment a complaint is made
… we need to pick a number; I'm not particularly
wedded to 3
… we need to start early; if things are left
languishing they'll never get resolved
… it's more a prompt to get things started
Chris: I'm suggesting that
the faster something gets resolved, the better
… as a reporter, delay feels like something is getting
ignored
Liz: depending on the
incident people might want to talk with others before making a
complaint
… on the investigation side that's where things tend
to take a long time
… so it would be better to reduce the time to get to
investigation
Chris: making the complaint
within 3 months feels OK
… "engage with the individual within 3 months" is what
stood out to me
Barbara: I'm with Chris; I
think the wording needs to be tighter, indicating we will proactively
work towards resolution which wouldn't last longer than 3 months
… note that proactive work would be done and you'd be
updated
Tzviya: looking at the 3 months, "you should" is the mediator or the complainant?
Liz: the person filing the complaint
Tzviya: we need to make it
more clear who the timeline applies to
… and make it clear than an Ombuds needs to respond to
a complaint within 24-48 hours
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to make a suggestion about 3 months
Liz: I haven't added a lot
of that context
… this would be questions related to how we fund this
<Zakim> tink, you wanted to respond to Cwilso's comment on timing
Liz: and if suddenly there
are lots of cases
… I'll clarify who the 3 months applies to
… if you have a complaint against someone else you
have 3 months to raise it in whatever manner you choose
… once you have done that you are fine
… if remediation turns into investigation, that's
fine; it's part of the original complaint
… once you have raised a complaint, can we reduce the
initial response to 48 hours and an Ombuds appointed within a week?
… that might be hard depending on funding
Barbara: a possibility for
us to consider: most of what I'm seeing is reactive
… could we add a program to highlight leadership;
where the community displays leadership in diversity and inclusion
… the first thing is to protect someone from issues
… what I like about the web is that it's open but we
don't highlight leadership either internally or externally
Tzviya: we have a relevant topic later on the agenda
Barbara: yes; Black History
Month
… there are diversity of communities, regions of the
world
… sometimes we jump into a specific one but we don't
say that diversity is broad and here's one example
Tzviya: remember that we
merged two CGs: Positive Work Environment and Inclusion and Diversity
… we're very open to ideas
Ralph: Liz, suggest looking
again at https://
Tzviya: ultimately the PWE
document will supersede the Guide document
… we're trying to avoid banning where possible
<Ralph> +1
Tzviya: I'd think the Guide
document could be incorporated into what Liz wrote
… it's much harsher and rarely used
… and it's not well-known
… my goal is that the PWE document replaces it
<Ralph> +1
WendyReid: on top of the
Ombuds work and what Liz is doing, I'm working on a syllabus for chair
training to address the leadership part
… how to run good meetings, the chair's role in
conflict resolution, ...
… the role of the chairs
… and how to run inclusive meetings, remaining
cognizant of timezones, etc.
… this is still being worked on
Barbara: that's the baseline
<wendyreid> https://
Barbara: I suggest
challenging them at the end of the training that we're looking for
opportunities to showcase leadership
… showing that we have that internally or externally
… the chairs are great sources and we'd love to tell
their stories
Tzviya: how would you showcase leadership?
Barbara: case studies
… where you felt a chair did a really good job
expanding their community and how they did that
… I could think about this and give some examples
… we've talked about inclusion and diversity at Intel
and are working on the next steps now
… I can send an example of where we had a leader or a
participant of a group indicating what they did to expand inclusion
and diversity
Sheila: is the purpose of
highlighting to celebrate examples of how it's been done or to provide
examples for people to look to to understand what they could do
differently?
… which direction are you hoping to take this?
Barbara: lots of layers:
protect when something happens, training
… I do STEM mentoring and I have diverse candidates;
in the STEM program it was highlighting how to include them
… they want to feel that it's more than a guideline or
policy but is cultural
… they want to feel included
… sometimes this is done with a buddy system
… sometimes it's showing leaders who have made it
cultural
… someone makes them feel included, not a unicorn
Tzviya: this is a complicated space; one of the things we're trying to accomplish is making sure we have codes of conduct and ombuds to make sure that if we do diversity outreach the people who join are not made to feel "othered"
<BarbaraH> +1
<cwilso> +1
Tzviya: we don't want to
reach out to someone saying "we want you to join us because you are [a
specific community member]"
… it's a delicate line to walk
<sheila> perhaps we're talking about best practices for engaging with one another with a lens toward cultural humility? Is that right?
<cwilso> +1
Tzviya: I feel strongly this
should be something W3C does as an organization, not [only] as a CG
… we can provide tips about inclusion, how to run
diversity training; we can advise management but there's only so
much a CG can accomplish
… others' thoughts?
WendyReid: chairs, in the
W3C context, do not love being in the limelight
… we are the administrators; we make sure things are
running smoothly
… it's important to create welcoming environments, use
inclusive language, ...
… chairs are not leaders in the sense of executives
… I look at this training as how to create better
environments for our working groups
… impressing upon chairs that because they are leaders
they have a higher responsibility for what they say and how they
treat others
… impress that being inclusive is important
… chairs are not generally responsible for recruiting
… so it's hard to put chairs in that position
… I want to focus on what chairs _can_ and _should_ do
Léonie: good point
<sheila> +1 wendy
Léonie: 2 or 3 years ago the
AB wrote some guidance for themselves and for the TAG on how to
communicate
… in there was some things to be aware of while
communicating
… including lead by example
Tzviya: I'll try to dig that up
<BarbaraH> STEM - 2 out 3
were not encouraged - https://
Black Lives Matter and Black History Month
Tzviya: a few years ago IDCG
worked on writing a BLM statement
… do we want to work on that again?
… we are not responsible for diversity in W3C but we
can make recommendations
… we can say why we didn't publish that draft BLM
statement; we got some feedback from an activist; it was a great
learning exercise for us
<tzviya> https://
Tzviya: in particular she said "I'm glad the CEO is here to hear this feedback; it is your responsibility"
WendyReid: thanks for
sharing that
… I think at this point it has been so long since we
originally drafted that BLM statement and even since we reworked it
that I think a different approach is needed
<BarbaraH> +1
WendyReid: I was thinking about where on w3.org such a statement should live
<BarbaraH> +1
WendyReid: nowhere on w3.org do we say what our values are
<wendyreid> https://
WendyReid: we don't talk at
all about our values
… we have a mission, FAQs, lots of info but we don't
talk about who we are
… we talk about technology but not about people
… there is an opportunity to create a broad statement
about our commitment to diversity and inclusion
… we want many voices; people to join with us to
create better, more inclusive, specifications for the web
… not just the BLM statement
… we value the diversity of our participants, we need
it, and we're taking it seriously
<Ralph> +1
Barbara: that's the theme I
was trying to articulate
… when we look at inclusion, the a11y team brings up
inclusion
… we have A11y Month in May; I am so proud of the WAI
team
… we have a May event on awareness; this would be a
good opportunity to showcase inclusion in partnership with WAI
Tzviya: I'm pretty sure that WAI is planning a lot for Global Accessibility Awareness Day
<tzviya> https://
Tzviya: there's no question
that W3C is excellent about including people with disabilities
… see ^^; it's an attempt on working on a vision
statement as Wendy was talking about
<BarbaraH> Google W3C
Inclusion - Here is the results. https://
Tzviya: this was written by
several AB members
… there is work going on to make these principles
clear, including diversity, accessibility, and other foundational
principles of W3C
Sheila: great to see this
draft; I would love to see this become more publicly available
… one thing that is often missing in these
conversations is the strategic goals piece
… I think there's an opportunity for this group to
recommend tactics; a phased move toward these aspirational goals
… it's very important to signal what the organization
and its members care about
… questions then arise on what actions we are taking
… there are specific initiatives around digital
accessibility, but other areas we don't see specific initiatives
… we should do that in addition to making a public
statement about who we are and what we believe in; showing what
actions we are taking to achieve those
WendyReid: that reminds me
of a conversation we had to implement an equity review board
… I wonder if this is where we can get strategic
… Equity Review as part of Horizontal Review could be
one way to do that
… we don't look at whether a spec potentially impacts
people from different groups differently
… or does a spec have technical requirements that
could be disincentives to people?
… looking at the equity lens could be one way to
implement strategic goals on the technology side
Tzviya: we talked a lot
about getting that up and running; we didn't figure it out
logistically
… I'd love to talk with the TAG about that
… another thing we've suggested and can make
recommendations is to pay attention to who [AC Reps] are nominating
as WG participants
… I heard a presentation from a company that their
entire staff was neurodiverse and that was a company commitment
… there are networks that we could tap into
… I'd love to get these suggestions documented
[adjourned]