Positive Work Environment CG

14 February 2023


cwilso, dbooth, npd, tzviya, uxjennifer, wendyreid
cwilso, dbooth

Meeting minutes

<tzviya> Date: 2023-02-14

Inclusion Fund for TPAC 2023

<wendyreid> w3c/PWETF#205

wendy: this is our annual task; hopefully will take less time this year since we created a template last year.
… we need to figure out the dates - TPAC is mid September, we need to backtrack far enough for people to be granted and receive the funds.

jen: thanks for doing this last year - it was very helpful, and having a buddy helped
… I would definitely encourage providing a support person if desired

tzviya: we should check with Coralie (I think) what our budget is; we tend to fundraise a year in the future. I'll take on checking.
… also when they are planning on announcing registration.

<tzviya> +1 to doing this at the AC meeting

wendy: should definitely try to get out funding ask as well
… we got a lot of spam last time, too - probably 75% of the submissions were spam

jen: I didn't know about the scholarship until I was told by someone. Socializing it would be good; relying on the AC rep to pass it on is not necessarily successful.

tzviya: we wrote up a blog post; unfortunately, it got buried at the end of another blog post rather than posted separately.
… definitely want to get this out with registration.

wendy: encouraging chairs to mention this when they mention TPAC registration is a good idea, too.

<sheila> I wonder if we could also do a PSA about this at the AC meeting in May?

<dbooth> +1 to the idea of chairs mentioning it, so that people learn about it early enough

jen: I would never have even thought about this until I was personally approached.
… reaching out to newcomers would be really helpful

wendy: hard for chairs to know peoples' situations, but we should definitely encourage chairs to reach out to their group members.

<npd> that's good advice to remind chairs; as a chair I didn't think to do that last year and I think it might have helped our group!

Running Better Meetings Training logistics review

wendy: we're going ahead with this training session; the first session is recorded, and we ask attendees to watch it; the second session is live, and we'll deal with time zones, etc.
… I can take on recording the first session and captioning, etc.

tzviya: we talked about doing this before the AC meeting, but I don't know if that's crucial.
… would be nice to have a breakout at the AC meeting

jen: finally started attending some other WGs and CGs, and they're all so different in process and structure.
… is there any way to ensure chairs get this training?

<dbooth> Is there a URL for draft content for "Running Better Meetings"? I'm looking in w3c/PWETF and don't immediately see it.

jen: frequently there's no transcript, no IRC, etc...

<dbooth> chris: This was feedback that I took from TPAC: anyone new had a hard time fitting into groups, without knowing the technology used.

<dbooth> ... How to take notes, queuing, etc.

... One challenge: Some had different expecations for how convos would run.
… hard to track multiple conversations.
… One colleague thought side conversations were helpful.

<npd> +1 that it's hard to get unanimous views on how/what to use for running a meeting

<npd> (I'm one of those side conversation people)

tzviya: there are many aspects of this; the process CG tried to write something about tooling, I know Michael Cooper is looking at this also.

<uxjennifer> One group I attended didn't track attendance. They had a Google doc, but I didn't have access to it, to track comments, so I didn't know how to participate and didn't want to derail the meeting.

tzviya: getting tools that work for a group can be challenging. Sometimes we can't dictate what every group uses, but we can ask that groups don't use tools that are inAccessible.
… and tools that are not available

wendy: I know I spend a lot of time talking about tools.

<uxjennifer> It could be helpful to have a list of things that need to be done in a group: attendance, queueing for questions, etc. and make sure each group has a process for that and asking for questions about process.

tzviya: we should just make sure that chairs are given the message "be clear about the tooling"

Equity CG announced

<wendyreid> https://www.w3.org/community/equity/

jen: will restart meetings, etc shortly
… if there's anything I need to do differently, please let me knopw

… hope to see some of you there.

chris: THere's no chair listed.
… I think anyone can set the chair until it's set, then only the chair can set it.

<npd> would be interesting to experiment with a group that doesn't have a chair, although I believe the Process insists on it

sheila: thanks - curious to know scope of the equity group

jen: more about outcomes of W3C than processes

<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to address sensitivity

<sheila> will definitely need to do some norm-setting around collaborative decision-making, in the absence of a chair

wendy: so, new CG. please join if you're interested.

<wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ATPAC

Open TPAC issues

<npd> +1 for figuring out with the group a better sense of what we mean by equity in the horizontal review process

wendy: first topic is childcare. I note it's mentioned in the announcement, which is a huge deal
… second was sensory rooms/quiet rooms.
… any suggestions?

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask if food amenities might cause people to com ein for other reasons

tzviya: would be helpful to have some consensus on this.

david: I wonder if providing food might be counterproductive.


<uxjennifer> sometimes it is hard to access the snacks

chris: In a conf often just need a quiet place.
… Not having food, conversations, figget spinners migt be better. They might be distractions.
… Suggest a sign saying "Please no chat here"

<tzviya> +1 to no conversations in this space

chris: We have signs like that in the google nap rooms.
… Sign of "This is for quiet space" might be enough

nick: +1 on quiet. It would be tempting.
… I wouldn't choose a room where people are eating and drinking, either.

<sheila> +1 on concerns about food/drink for COVID reasons

jen: +1 to all. it was nice to have the hotel room right there for me.

+1 to Jen. I typically disappear at least once a day for 15 mins of deco time.

<npd> yeah, many people use hotel rooms specifically for getting away from the social overwhelmed feeling, but not everyone will have a hotel room in the same building

+1 npd

jen: citrus/scents are also nice

+1 to avoiding food in the room, for covid reasons

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask about consensus

tzviya: do we have general consensus on having quiet room signs?

+1 to quiet room


<uxjennifer> note scents are sensitive -- some may have migraines and such, so it's key to keep it to the individual who needs to think of their own.

<npd> +1 to quiet room. and using "quiet room" might actually make the concept more readily understandable to more participants

Inclusion Fund for TPAC 2023

Revisit decision about changing name to CPC

wendy: we wanted to revisit the decision about changing the name. We've socialized CEPC quite a bit. We'd have to resocialize the name. Also, I don't think we should give up the idea of having ethics in the code.

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest that if the groups wants to include ethics, that a visible placeholder be put into the doc

david: I'm sort of neutral - I think it would be better to address ethics in a separate document - but at least maybe put in a placeholder

tzviya: the document really needs to be in a final state, so we probably shouldn't have placeholders - it might have legal implications.

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to dbooth

<Zakim> npd, you wanted to like the name, but also that ethics is not enforced in the same way

tzviya: while we don't strictly list things that are ethics, I'm not concerned enough that it's not obvious.

nick: if there are ethics in the document, I don't think those are handled by a chair in the moment.
… I'm not sure I could interrupt a meeting in the moment, "that's not Sustainable" or the like...
… seems like a separate direction

chris: Not strongly pushing to change the name. The point of it being socialized is strong. Need to socialize it w every new person. That's where I feel like "Code of Conduct" is a well socialized concept, not a surpirce.

<tzviya> +1 to cwilso

chris: Introducing it as CEPC referring to it as "Code of Condct".
… Other side, ethics: Getting attacked from other areas, such as from other groups, I don't think it belongs in the same place. Who defines thr right ethics? Probably not this community group. They're supposed to be binding.
… It will leave some stuff in the cold. Will be a hard convo.
… Don't want to intro ethics here beause we'll have to define ethics.
… .Worried it will weaken our ability to deliver on Code of COnduct.

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say if the document is not complete -- lacks ethics -- then it should not bill itself that way.

david: I think it's important not to bill itself as something it's not.

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to say I prefer CoC to CPC

tzviya: I don't think there's a lot of disagreement. We probably shouldn't call it CPC - either CEPC or CoC.
… I'd be comfortable making it CoC.

<npd> I preferred CPC, but I don't have a strong view on it

+0 -- I'm neutral about "Code of Conduct" vs "COPC"

<sheila> also neutral

Fine with me to rename as "Code of Conduct"

jen: it's very confusing. When I first heard CEPC, it was confusing - but then I thought it was awesome.
… What we really want is more people participating in PWE.
… we definitely would need to say that we're not removing ethics from the W3C


wendy: part of it would be communication of the change.

david: +1 to acknowledging Ethics is not being abandoned.

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest that if there's concern about removal of the word "ethics", a note should be added at the bottom saying it will be in a separate document

tzviya: I really don't want to include a note in this document


I find tzviya's argument convincing also.

chris: I don't think we will ever add "thou shalt be ethical in these ways ..." to this document, developed in this CG - there are several other groups working on broader ethical consensus (TAG, AB).

nick: I still kind of appreciate the "P" in CoPC.
… it's not "just a code of conduct"
… professional standards, not just ground rules that might get ignored

<npd> npd: but no strong objection to any of the change proposals here

jen: I suggested we have a monthly training session for new members. The Code could be reviewed in that.

<npd> I don't mind considering ethics in this group even if it will need to be reviewed and get consensus from the wider community

wendy: PROPOSAL: we change CEPC to "Code of Conduct".

<tzviya> +1


<uxjennifer> +1

<wendyreid> +1


<npd> +0

<sheila> +0

wendy: not going to resolve this today. Will do a PR, and maybe the tone will make us lean one way or another.

tzviya: will also ask others, like Ada and Angel.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).


Succeeded: s/scibe+//

Succeeded: s/direciton/direction

Succeeded: s/to the doc/to this document, developed in this CG - there are several other groups working on broader ethical consensus (TAG, AB)

Succeeded: s/Angele/Angel

Maybe present: chris, david, jen, nick, sheila, wendy

All speakers: chris, david, jen, nick, sheila, tzviya, wendy

Active on IRC: cwilso, dbooth, npd, sheila, tzviya, uxjennifer, wendyreid