Meeting minutes
<wendyreid> date: 2022-07-19
Disciplinary Process
Liz: there's a draft
… this came up because WendyS suggested we package the disciplinary process with the Ombuds program
… to be able to cost and describe how dispute resolution should work
Judy: I thought we might be looking at whether some could be sourced from existing HR
wseltzer: when I brought the Ombuds program and budget proposal to management team, they wanted to see the overall program to see how it addresses CEPC enforcement
Lutgendorff: also valuable to help W3C team see what is expected of them
… I'll email it to the list
several: sounds good
Cadence for updating CEPC
wendyreid: there have been several editorial changes made to CEPC
… want to discuss cadence or triggers for CEPC update
… recognizing that publishing requires AC approval
… thoughts?
hober: as you identified, we don't want to go to the AC too frequently with small changes
… I'd set some threshold of normative changes: one significant or several smaller normative changes
… it would be nice if we could go forward with a discrete vote, just on the change
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest two approaches
cwilso: 2 ways to look at: threshold of changes, or as process does, by default, we'll update once a year
… hard part is knowing when to update. Probably once a year
Lutgendorff: time-based is easiest, and we can pick a schedule
… also helps maintain timeliness if we telegraph a regular cadence
… "get your changes in before this date", set expectations
… helps to cut through differences on what constitutes a substantive change
Judy: +1 to having a cadence
… we might want to phrase as, we'll evaluate on X date whethere we'll propose a rev that year
… conservatism on the commitment we make each year
… also suggest asking the Ombuds for input
… if they see issues that could be clearer
wendyreid: I like the idea of having a time of year to review
… reach out to the ombuds, AC
Lutgendorff: normalizing as a bureaucratic process can help deescalate
… making it open, transparent, and more manageable
wendyreid: +1
… It should be open and systematic
… To summarize: we agree there should be a yearly cadence, in a time of year that's lower key
… with a 3-4 month window for intake, processing, and proposing revision to AC
hober: if we avoid fall and spring AC meetings; maybe look at summer?
<cwilso> +1
wendyreid: aim for July, be able to socialize the start at spring AC meeting, and the result at TPAC
Lutgendorff: does anyone volunteer to write up the cadence
wendyreid: I can
IDCG repo
wendyreid: there are lots of old issues there
… the one that stands out to me is equity review process
… would like to bring that for more discussion
https://
Judy: I didn't recall it had gotten that far
… tried investigating model ERBs when this initially came up, very hard to find examples, would need fresh investigation to see if more examples now.
wendyreid: another issue, mentoring/buddy system
Lutgendorff: confirm it's a lot of work
… can we start with providing information about mentoring resources?
<Judy> +1 to trying to provide DIY guidance on mentoring
wendyreid: could we give suggestion to chairs on how to welcome new participants?
wseltzer: As we're all thinking towards TPAC, should we think about welcoming event or opportunity there? To the community
wendyreid: I recall an informal pre-meeting at Lyon TPAC
wseltzer: IETF has used a "dot" system in the past for people to indicate they are new
Judy: people may also be signaling their interaction preferences re COVID
… coordinate with events team
hober: my daughter often wants to signal "don't see me or hear me"
… visibility: none
wendyreid: consider some pre-opening gathering, talk to events team
wendyreid: any other issues in IDCG repo that stand out?
Lutgendorff: or anything we can close?
[suggested out of scope: 33, 29]
[adjourned]