– DRAFT –
Positive Work Environment CG

24 May meeting notes

10 May meeting notes

Working mode of PWE, next action items for PWE

Tzviya: Liz and I talked about things have been kind-of haphazard recently
… it's been hard to complete action items
… we have 3 chairs now; Wendy Reid just started, though she's on vacation today
… we took on the work of the Inclusion & Diversity CG last year
… this is an opportunity to talk about where we go from here
… there's a lot sitting waiting for progress that might happen with the legal entity

Sheila: a clarifying question: where would you say things are getting stuck? specific places things are breaking down or just general lack of progress?

Tzviya: people volunteer for tasks then do it off-line
… we should work on-line so that others can pick things up later if necessary
… in some areas we're writing policy for the organization and that needs to be passed up the pipeline; we should be able to clarify how we do that

Chris: the work on the CEPC was critical and the group deserves credit for it
… has the merger with IDCG been part of the problem? too many disparate things assigned to this group?
… on the Ombuds program there is a clear ability to move forward and we just need to unblock
… we have something ready to propose; we should propose it
… if additional funding is needed, I think I can help find it
… I'm not sure how to move some things like disciplinary actions forward

Judy: focus could be an issue, though we have so little discussion of inclusion or even diversity that I'm not sure that is a distraction
… my concern that that work would get lost in the merger have proven accurate
… W3C desperately needs work on diversity and inclusion
… w.r.t. the PWE area, I believe the need for that is also really high
… the CEPC has already helped us in many ways, some more and some less visible
… we need to do an update
… there are some things that are not adequately defined to address scenarios that come up frequently
… overall the CG is lacking clear goals and motivation towards those goals
… getting the Ombuds program versioned-up could be one of those goals
… we have a sketch of what we want but we're not moving forward

<Liz> (sorry, meeting ran long)

Wendy: I recognize W3C should be doing more but we've had successes

Tzviya: we can talk about how to get back to the goals of IDCG too
… the Ombuds program ties-in with the disciplinary work too

Sheila: there's a budget connection too

[WendyReid joins]

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to review existing projects

<sheila> +1 to easy access

Ombuds Job Description W3C, draft

Liz: I can get a draft of the disput resolution process into GitHub

Tzviya: WendyReid is working on the inclusion fund as well

Guidelines to suspend or remove participants from groups

Tzviya: I don't think that the banning guidelines fall within the purview of this CG

Tzviya: we're very close to having a proposal for Ombuds; we just need to pull the pieces together
… I can put that proposal together from the pieces and bring it here to our next meeting

Sheila: we decided to hold on the interview part; do we still need it?
… is it a level of detail that we need in the proposal?

Tzviya: we didn't want potential interviewees to see it in advance

JudyB: it seems that posting the interview questions publicly might not be the best way to conduct interviews

Sheila: being transparent about the process but not the specific questions
… we have a general rubric about the selection committee but some open questions about who would serve and the specific questions

Tzviya: so our next step on Ombuds is to pull the pieces together and have a proposal for the next CG meeting

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls

Open Pull Requests

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/194

Tzviya: some of the pulls are simply editorial
… e.g. #194 is only to make the sort order more useful
… any objections?

[none]
… Verbal -> Informal #183 is in the disciplinary process so skipping for now
… added personal attacks to unacceptable #184
… comments about verbal attacks
… attacks against individuals vs organizations
… please add your thoughts
… Jeanne's comments about insinuations
… "Verbal or written attacks, insinuations, or denigration of individuals or organizations."
… comments?

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/184

<tzviya> "Verbal or written attacks, insinuations, or denigration of individuals or organizations."

Judy: it's far from plain language

Tzviya: the intent is that we don't want attacks or things that could be construed as an attack

Judy: can we capture this at a basic level? "negative statements about someone's character"
… there are a number of things in CEPC where a single instance is less severe than repeated occurrences

<tzviya> verbal or written attacks

<tzviya> negative statements about character

<sheila> I personally don't think organizations warrant the same level of protection as individuals

Tzviya: I'll close this pull and open a new one with these two suggestions
… objections?

[none]

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/201

Tzviya: misinfo #201 I added at the request of someone

Ralph: Sarven's question is how is deliberate misinformation different from disinformation?

Liz: the definition of disinformation is that it is intentional / deliberate
… my inclination is to use "deliberate misinformation" as it might not be obvious to some that "disinformation" is deliberate
… even though they mean the same thing, it's better to be explicit

Tzviya: any objections to merging?

[none]

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

Tzviya: we've merged a lot of edits and we might want to publish an update

<sheila> +1 to changing to threats. additionally, might be worthwhile to add violence to the glossary and define its breadth.

[adjourned]