15:00:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
15:00:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/31-pwe-irc
15:00:27 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:00:58 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
15:00:59 <wendyreid> meeting: Positive Work Environments CG Telco 31 January 2023
15:00:59 <wendyreid> date: 31-01-2023
15:01:09 <wendyreid> chair: tzviya, wendyreid
15:01:31 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
15:01:40 <JenStrickland> present+
15:02:30 <cwilso> present+
15:02:32 <tzviya> present+
15:03:24 <tzviya> scribe+ JenStrickland
15:03:37 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
15:03:38 <JenStrickland> scribe+
15:03:51 <JenStrickland> scribe: JenStrickland
15:04:07 <JenStrickland> Wendy: scheduling meeting training
15:04:22 <dbooth> present+
15:04:34 <JenStrickland> Wendy: took in all recommendations for the Running Better Meetings training, uploaded to Github in Markdown files
15:04:52 <JenStrickland> Wendy: seeking suggested dates to run the training as something to aim towards
15:05:08 <JenStrickland> Wendy: first session will be recorded and people will be invited to watch
15:05:22 <tzviya> q+
15:05:24 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: second will be in-person and scheduled for different time zones
15:05:37 <cwilso> q+
15:05:38 <Jem> Jem has joined #pwe
15:05:46 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: also seeking who to invite, chairs obviously and anyone running meetings
15:05:51 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
15:05:56 <cwilso> q-
15:05:57 <Jem> present+
15:06:04 <JenStrickland> tzviya: wondering if we want to coordinate this with the AC meeting in May
15:06:22 <JenStrickland> cwilso: that's what I was queueing to say
15:06:46 <JenStrickland> tzviya: Chris is also very good at coaching on meetings and presenting
15:07:02 <cwilso> (and happy to help)
15:07:09 <annette_g> annette_g has joined #pwe
15:07:30 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: aiming for May means I have time to record and edit, luckily I have an in-house video production staff - my partner does that for a living
15:07:33 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: if we
15:08:11 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: if we're running during the AC meeting then we also would need another for non-AC people, and a time that suits Asia time zones, too.
15:08:22 <annette_g> present+
15:08:29 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we don't need to pick a specific date now
15:08:37 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: it gives me something to aim for
15:08:52 <JenStrickland> Zakim, take up next
15:08:52 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:08:53 <Jem> agenda?
15:09:16 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we have some open issues that David Booth will speak to
15:09:37 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/228#issuecomment-1407551041
15:09:39 <JenStrickland> dbooth: I came across the CEPC a few weeks ago and took an interest,
15:09:56 <JenStrickland> tzviya: David has an issue documented in #228 we'll work on today
15:10:25 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we're planning to publish an update to CEPC in July, there's nothing urgent but we know it takes time to get things done.
15:10:29 <npd> present+
15:10:40 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we have a suggestion to change the CEPC to Code of Conduct
15:10:50 <cwilso> q+
15:10:56 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:10:57 <JenStrickland> tzviya: this was previously raised, but we decided to let it rest… until this meeting
15:11:27 <JenStrickland> cwilso: it would make sense to have it be the CEPC but we don't really cover ethics now and that seems like a big update
15:11:36 <JenStrickland> cwilso: I'd be inclined to rename it now
15:11:51 <npd> q+
15:11:56 <wendyreid> ack npd
15:12:00 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: CEPC is something we've always had to explain, but COC is a more familiar acronym
15:12:56 <JenStrickland> npd: agree if the code of ethics was a code of ethics; I like that it's an unusual term… COC, I've seen those, can be controversial; whereas CEPC is unique and useful
15:13:04 <JenStrickland> q+
15:13:10 <wendyreid> ack JenStrickland
15:13:13 <wendyreid> scribe+
15:14:10 <cwilso> q+
15:14:13 <JenStrickland> scribe+
15:14:15 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: If the CEPC covered ethics, I'd agree with Nick, but with the missing ethics it's confusing. Though our code of conduct has more heart, it's not like other CoCs. We could possibly add ethics in the time before publication
15:14:20 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:14:54 <tzviya> q+
15:15:00 <dbooth> q+ to endorse having separate COE and COC
15:15:10 <JenStrickland> cwilso: want to make clear I'm happy to cover ethics, just hasn't been covered to date. overlaps with stuff the AB & TAG are working on. The ACM code of ethics covers stuff we discussed before, but not covering today.
15:15:14 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
15:15:25 <tzviya> https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics
15:15:30 <JenStrickland> cwilso: we're trying to get people to conduct themselves well now
15:15:42 <JenStrickland> cwilso: maybe we should rename and later focus on code of ethics
15:16:08 <npd> I don't have a strong feeling on the title, just sharing one advantage from my experience
15:16:27 <JenStrickland> tzviya: tend to agree with Chris that this might be a future product, linking to the ACM CoE… there's wordsmithing for us to do, but don't think the PWE has the bandwidth to do now, maybe next year
15:16:31 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:16:31 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to endorse having separate COE and COC
15:16:47 <JenStrickland> dbooth: endorse the idea of separate docs, COC & COE.
15:17:29 <annette_g> +1 to separate documents. I feel that it's pretty fundamental to the function of a title to reflect the content.
15:17:34 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: like the COPC - which is a funny acronym in Canada.
15:17:49 <dbooth> +1 to COPC or COC
15:17:52 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: as we are looking for professional conduct
15:17:57 <cwilso> +1 to COC or COPC
15:18:01 <wendyreid> Proposed: Change name of CEPC to Code of Professional Conduct (CPC)
15:18:05 <cwilso> +1
15:18:07 <tzviya> +1
15:18:10 <wendyreid> +1
15:18:10 <Jem> +1 CPC
15:18:13 <JenStrickland> q+
15:18:18 <wendyreid> ack JenStrickland
15:18:28 <annette_g> +1
15:18:30 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: Has anyone ever heard of anyone calling this a CPC?
15:18:49 <wendyreid> npd: I think the ACM also uses professional conduct
15:18:51 <dbooth> I like the word "professional" in  the name.
15:19:44 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: Want to reduce a barrier of entry that CEPC has, many people are still not familiar with our unusual acronyms, use plain language, make things as straightforward as possible
15:19:53 <wendyreid> ... worried about CPC vs CoC
15:19:57 <tzviya> q+
15:20:07 <wendyreid> ... I know these can be controversial though
15:20:16 <JenStrickland> ack tzviya
15:20:36 <JenStrickland> tzviya: as long as the url resolves it doesn't matter. does that make sense to everyone.
15:20:56 <JenStrickland> w3.org/coc resolves to the right document -- should be okay
15:20:58 <wendyreid> q+
15:21:06 <npd> as a reminder, the title of the document that I'm looking at is "Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct"
15:21:14 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
15:21:14 <wendyreid> ack wendyreid
15:21:14 <JenStrickland> tzviya: the url is what matters most.
15:22:04 <npd> +1 to CPC
15:22:07 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: re people not being familiar with CEPC & PWE, is chairs and others to socialize the link and make sure people know about it; make a standard practice of mentioning it at the start of ea meeting
15:22:16 <wendyreid> s/ea/each
15:23:03 <JenStrickland> tzviya: I think we have a lot of support for CPC, just cutting out the ethics
15:23:18 <wendyreid> RESOLVED: Change name of CEPC to Code of Professional Conduct (CPC)
15:24:01 <JenStrickland> tzviya: some of these are minor, section called "status of this document" that dbooth is suggesting changing to … ?
15:24:29 <dbooth> q+
15:24:30 <JenStrickland> tzviya: I'd prefer to leave it, as someone reading the abstract it might be reading only as an abstract and can stand alone.
15:24:40 <tzviya> ack dbooth
15:24:40 <JenStrickland> ack dbooth
15:25:16 <JenStrickland> dbooth: in my experience, anyone reading an abstract they are already reading the title, so I don't think it needs to be in the abstract. again, this is very minor, so not making a big issue.
15:25:47 <JenStrickland> tzviya: that is coming from the world of scholarly publishing, whereas this is standards documentation. so, if that's okay with everyone let's leave to not adopt suggestion.
15:25:54 <annette_g> q+
15:25:56 <JenStrickland> dbooth: do we have any other opinions?
15:26:04 <tzviya> ack annette_g
15:26:05 <JenStrickland> ack annette_g
15:26:37 <JenStrickland> annette_g: I feel the title would always be with the abstract so I wouldn't make having the title in there as a hill I would die on, however I don't see any harm in having it in there.
15:27:07 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: we'd have to go through the doc and change all instances of CEPC to CPC.
15:27:07 <dbooth> I've heard enough support for keeping the title in the abstract, so I suggest we leave it as is and move on.
15:27:53 <dbooth> Now discussing  suggestion 5 in https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/228
15:27:59 <JenStrickland> tzviya: suggestion 5: in the abstracts change accepted and acceptable to acceptable. Just to read it aloud, W3C CEPC defines accepted and acceptable behaviors… and change to just acceptable.
15:28:12 <npd> q+
15:28:13 <dbooth> +1 to "acceptable and unacceptable"
15:28:15 <sheila> agree with changing it, as what's "accepted" may change
15:28:16 <tzviya> ack npd
15:28:20 <JenStrickland> tzviya: probably should change to acceptable and unacceptable behaviors -- since that's what we actually do
15:28:43 <JenStrickland> npd: it seems we do define acceptable and unacceptable, but then we say expected behavior.
15:29:02 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we had to excavate a lot of documents to create this
15:29:06 <sheila> I like "expected and acceptable"
15:29:28 <JenStrickland> npd: just want to start using the same language in all the places.
15:29:57 <dbooth> +1 to the word "unacceptable" in abstract
15:30:02 <sheila> "expected, acceptable, and unacceptable"
15:30:19 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: I think saying acceptable and unacceptable is fine in the abstract because it's the most accurate
15:30:20 <npd> +1 to expected and unacceptable
15:30:31 <dbooth> -1 to "expected and unacceptable"
15:30:51 <Jem> -1
15:30:57 <JenStrickland> dbooth: I think it's confusing.
15:31:01 <JenStrickland> -1
15:31:05 <Jem> with the same reason David mentioned
15:31:23 <annette_g> q+
15:31:30 <tzviya> ack annette_g
15:31:32 <JenStrickland> ack annette_g
15:31:45 <dbooth> Prefer either "expected" or "acceptable and unacceptable"
15:32:05 <cwilso> q+
15:32:06 <tzviya> what about "defines both Expected and Unacceptable behaviors"
15:32:09 <JenStrickland> annette_g: think we want a pairing, acceptable & unacceptable works. adding others would change the meaning of some of the sentences.
15:32:22 <JenStrickland> ack cwilso
15:32:26 <JenStrickland> cwi
15:33:13 <dbooth> On principle, an abstract should not have redundancy.
15:33:25 <JenStrickland> cwilso: I would point out this is stated twice in the abstract, once in the intro and once in first bullet… if we're making opposing terms then we probably want to break the first bullet into two. we're defining unacceptable and acceptable stuff. getting deeper into a language hole.
15:33:35 <dbooth> q+ to remove redundancy from the abstract
15:33:50 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:33:50 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to remove redundancy from the abstract
15:33:56 <JenStrickland> cwilso: agree with David's original point to remove redundancy.
15:34:25 <JenStrickland> dbooth: I hadn't noticed that it is later in the abstract and we shouldn't have redundancy. my original point was that the word wasn't adding anything.
15:34:33 <tzviya> +1 to PR
15:34:38 <dbooth> +1 to PR
15:34:43 <npd> +1 that in any case "accepted" isn't adding anything
15:34:45 <Jem> As a native speaker, simeple sentence structurereally helps understanding.
15:35:02 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: this PR may be more complex than simply removing one word. may make more sense if we also fix the bullet points to reflect. we'll do it, then vote on the PR when written.
15:35:23 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: in the abstract, delete the benchmark bullet, as the document doesn't contain anything about measurements.
15:35:48 <Jem> how about someone creating the PR and reviewing with comparision?
15:35:49 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: I think what we meant was we provide a framework, and maybe it's a matter of rewording.
15:36:28 <Jem> We would need to understand the context of change, not word by word.
15:36:32 <dbooth> on to suggestion 7...
15:36:56 <dbooth> (hearing general agreement)
15:36:59 <npd> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/228#issuecomment-1407551041
15:37:38 <wendyreid> wendyreid: SUGGESTION 7: In the Abstract, move the "Ensure an environment where people can participate without fear of harassment" bullet before the "Ensure transparency in community and group management".
15:37:38 <wendyreid> 
15:37:38 <wendyreid> EXPLANATION: More important bullets should be listed before less important bullets.
15:38:16 <JenStrickland> tzviya: just switching the order of the bullets -- as ensuring an environment where people can participate w/o fear of harassment is most important
15:38:22 <Jem> +q
15:38:25 <dbooth> +1
15:38:29 <JenStrickland> ack Jem
15:38:30 <tzviya> ack Jem
15:38:36 <cwilso> +1
15:39:00 <JenStrickland> Jen it's hard to make a decision about the words we want for context, so I wonder if someone could create a PR and then we review it.
15:39:01 <dbooth> Yes, I'm happy to do a PR
15:39:11 <JenStrickland> tzviya: Wendy & I will do PRs before the next discussion.
15:39:41 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we're now moving into the ones that require discussion
15:39:42 <wendyreid> SUGGESTION 8: In section 2 (Statement of Intent), to the end of the first sentence add: "that is safe and welcoming for all, regardless of level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, technology choices, or other irrelevant characteristic."
15:39:42 <wendyreid> 
15:39:42 <wendyreid> EXPLANATION: This was cribbed from the WHATWG Code of Conduct https://whatwg.org/code-of-conduct and I think more clearly describes -- up front -- the intent of the document.
15:40:05 <JenStrickland> tzviya: section 8 is in the statement of intent…
15:41:03 <wendyreid> W3C is committed to maintaining a positive work environment.
15:41:08 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we all share responsibility for the working environment. dbooth is suggesting changing to … adding to first sentence, w3c is committed to maintaining the positive work env… [etc -- please see comment from dbooth]
15:41:23 <wendyreid> Revision: W3C is committed to maintaining a positive work environment that is safe and welcoming for all, regardless of level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, technology choices, or other irrelevant characteristic.
15:41:30 <cwilso> WHATWG CoC: https://whatwg.org/code-of-conduct
15:41:39 <dbooth> q+
15:41:43 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:41:59 <Jem> this is the current sentence. " W3C is committed to maintaining a positive working environment, where each participant feels appreciated and respected and where everyone adheres to the same high level of standards of personal behavior."
15:42:25 <Jem> +1 to David in that it makes the intention clear.
15:42:31 <tzviya> q+
15:42:32 <JenStrickland> dbooth: just background, the reason I'm suggesting is because of suggestion 9. I think it will be helpful for the document as a whole to summarize high-level guidance. much is very specific, but it would be good to have a summary.
15:42:55 <JenStrickland> dbooth: I think the details and examples are helpful, but it would be useful to begin with a summary.
15:43:03 <JenStrickland> dbooth: for setting the overall goal.
15:43:09 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
15:44:15 <JenStrickland> tzviya: I hesitate to put something like this in our introductory statement, certainly not this level of detail. I can go into a lot of detail, but if we do we need to reword. as "irrelevant" cannot be included as they are relevant to those individuals. the point of keeping this brief is to provide a positive work environment for everyone.
15:44:35 <JenStrickland> tzviya: stating like this accentuates the possibility of not providing …
15:44:49 <annette_g> q+
15:44:55 <JenStrickland> tzviya: we don't get into issues like potential racism until we talk about unacceptable behaviors.
15:44:57 <JenStrickland> ack Jem
15:45:28 <JenStrickland> Jem: I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. why do you think what dbooth is saying is not positive?
15:45:36 <JenStrickland> q+
15:45:47 <dbooth> As a friendly amendment, I agree that the word "irrelevant" should be modified if it risks being misunderstood.
15:45:48 <wendyreid> ack annette_g
15:45:49 <JenStrickland> ack annette_g
15:45:53 <npd> q+ to summary vs details
15:46:07 <JenStrickland> annette_g: I worry about providing a convenient summary, and people may miss the nuances.
15:46:09 <wendyreid> ack JenStrickland
15:46:13 <sheila> q+
15:46:36 <dbooth> q+ to disagree about trying to force people to read the whole document instead of a summary.
15:47:11 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: I appreciate what David is suggesting, trying to create a quick summary of the document. Having read the entire document, I think it is really important people read the entire thing, especially if they come from a dominant culture or identity group. It's helpful
15:47:43 <wendyreid> ... speaking to the spirit of the document, then when you get into each bullet and reflect on each statement. It helped to see each one taken into consideration
15:48:09 <wendyreid> ... each one is thoughtfully composed, it was clear to me. I think it's critical everyone review each one
15:48:21 <wendyreid> ... people should be expected to review each one
15:48:28 <wendyreid> ack npd
15:48:28 <Zakim> npd, you wanted to summary vs details
15:48:35 <JenStrickland> scribe+
15:49:12 <JenStrickland> npd: I think David is suggesting that we follow the WHATWG in having a summary at top, but I don't think the WHATWG has a summary, rather a list.
15:49:34 <cwilso> +1; this *is* the WHATWG CoC, not a summary of it.
15:49:55 <wendyreid> ack sheila
15:49:59 <JenStrickland> npd: we have a longer list and more detailed list in unacceptable behavior. those categories are very important and unacceptable behavior section is a good place to include it. I don't think we should pull just one part into the statement of intent.
15:50:46 <dbooth> q-
15:50:47 <JenStrickland> sheila: I agree with all that; I do think there's a benefit to having a shorter version of this that people can refer to, as we do at my place. at the start of meetings to read through. I agree that pulling one sentence listing demographics isn't it.
15:50:58 <Jem> nitpicking. "the same high level of standards of personal behavior" is really vague concept.
15:51:15 <JenStrickland> sheila: perhaps before the July refresh we may create a summarized version and refer to a link to please read the longer version.
15:51:45 <tzviya> +1 to sheila
15:51:49 <JenStrickland> sheila: in the statement of intent, reference what David is saying without listing things out. Including & especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds… 
15:52:26 <dbooth> +q
15:52:30 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:52:42 <JenStrickland> sheila: to summarize: some point having a shorter version to reference, and then longer term coming up with a way to reference historically marginalized communities without listing at this stage because it's incomplete at this stage.
15:53:22 <JenStrickland> dbooth: re the word "irrelevant" I didn't realize that word might be taken with a different intent than what I meant when I wrote it. I meant to include any other marginalized categories.
15:53:26 <Jem> "In such a diverse environment, misunderstandings and disagreements happen, which in most cases can be resolved informally."
15:53:26 <JenStrickland> ack Jem
15:54:02 <JenStrickland> Jem: the introduction is not strong enough to indicate what this is for.
15:54:13 <tzviya> q+
15:54:14 <JenStrickland> Jem: the vagueness in the introduction is throwing me off.
15:55:08 <JenStrickland> jem: i support David's suggestion but think Sheila's option is very good compromise. I often can't read through the whole document, as I struggle to read all the English.
15:55:16 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
15:55:26 <JenStrickland> q+ to ask if we could have the CPC translated into a few languages?
15:55:34 <dbooth> Current wording:
15:55:35 <dbooth> [[
15:55:37 <dbooth> 2. . Statement of Intent
15:55:37 <dbooth> W3C is committed to maintaining a positive work environment. This commitment calls for a workplace where participants at all levels behave according to the rules of the following code. A foundational concept of this code is that we all share responsibility for our work environment.
15:55:38 <dbooth> ]]
15:55:45 <JenStrickland> tzviya: I agree the sentence is difficult to parse, would like to propose adopting Sheila's suggestion.
15:56:09 <npd> marginalized?
15:56:11 <dbooth> +1 to tzviya
15:56:12 <annette_g> marginalized
15:56:27 <tzviya> Proposal: W3C is committed to maintaining a positive work environment, especially those in marginalized communities.
15:56:30 <dbooth> I like that suggestion.
15:56:35 <annette_g> +1
15:56:40 <wendyreid> +1
15:56:43 <tzviya> +1
15:56:52 <Jem> 0
15:56:52 <cwilso> 0
15:56:56 <JenStrickland> any concern that someone will not be happy about "especially"?
15:57:04 <annette_g> s/especially those/ especially for those/
15:57:12 <cwilso> q+
15:57:37 <dbooth> how about "including" instead of "especially"?
15:57:47 <Jem> This is really difficult discussion
15:57:50 <tzviya> ack je
15:57:50 <Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to ask if we could have the CPC translated into a few languages?
15:57:52 <tzviya> ack cw
15:57:53 <JenStrickland> +1 to including
15:58:04 <dbooth> q+ to suggest: how about "including" instead of "especially"?
15:58:14 <sheila> "W3C is committed to maintaining a positive work environment for all, including and especially those from historically marginalized communities"
15:58:28 <Jem> negative language vs inclusive language
15:58:32 <wendyreid> +1 to Sheila's
15:58:42 <cwilso> +1
15:58:44 <JenStrickland> cwilso: worry it gives people free reign that it's only about that -- it's for everybody, not just solving some definite problems we have around marginalized communities.
15:58:45 <tzviya> +1
15:58:45 <npd> +1 for including 'for all/everyone'
15:58:46 <annette_g> -1 to still having "especially" in there
15:58:51 <JenStrickland> +1 to Sheila's rewrite.
15:58:52 <sheila> 1+
15:58:54 <sheila> q+
15:59:01 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:59:01 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest: how about "including" instead of "especially"?
15:59:03 <Ralph> +1 to sheila's version
15:59:22 <tzviya> ack sheila
16:00:06 <tzviya> +1 to sheila
16:00:09 <wendyreid> +1
16:00:09 <annette_g> q+
16:00:19 <npd> +1, that's good reasoning for "including and especially"
16:00:36 <Jem> Thanks everyone. I found this is a challenging discussion. I would propose to review the PR with comparision at next meeting.
16:00:37 <dbooth> I retract my suggestion to remove "and especially"
16:00:51 <cwilso> +1
16:01:11 <tzviya> RESOLVED: W3C is committed to maintaining a positive work environment for all, including and especially those from historically marginalized communities
16:01:13 <npd> thanks editors for managing those PRs
16:01:59 <Jem> rrsagent, make minutes
16:02:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/31-pwe-minutes.html Jem
16:03:20 <dbooth> ACTION: David to open issues for 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
16:03:53 <Ralph> [adjourned]
16:03:56 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
16:03:56 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been JenStrickland, cwilso, tzviya, dbooth, Jem, annette_g, npd
16:03:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:03:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/31-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
16:04:05 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:04:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
16:04:08 <Ralph> present+
16:05:17 <Ralph> present+ Sheila
16:05:28 <Ralph> present+ WendyReid
16:06:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/31-pwe-minutes.html Ralph