IRC log of pwe on 2023-02-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pwe
14:55:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc
14:55:23 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:55:24 [Zakim]
Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
14:55:30 [wendyreid]
chair: wendyreid
14:55:37 [wendyreid]
date: 2023-02-28
14:57:38 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #pwe
15:00:27 [cwilso]
present+
15:00:46 [wendyreid]
present+
15:02:16 [dbooth]
present+
15:02:18 [Ralph]
present+
15:03:51 [Ralph]
agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2023Feb/0002.html
15:04:14 [wendyreid]
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/246
15:04:19 [dbooth]
Present+ Nick Doty
15:04:21 [Ralph]
topic: Preamble to CEPC
15:04:24 [Ralph]
scribe+
15:05:09 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #pwe
15:05:34 [dbooth]
q+
15:05:41 [npdoty]
q+
15:05:42 [cwilso]
q+
15:05:45 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:05:45 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to say I think i'ts resolved! and to
15:05:45 [npdoty]
present+
15:05:53 [Ralph]
Wendy: the idea is to recite this at the start of meetings to remind people of CEPC
15:06:06 [Ralph]
DBooth: thanks for clarifying the purpose
15:06:22 [Ralph]
... I felt that repeating what is in the main document doesn't help
15:06:32 [wendyreid]
ack npdoty
15:06:35 [Ralph]
... I like the idea but could it point to parts of the document instead?
15:06:50 [Ralph]
Nick: I think it's a useful step
15:07:17 [Ralph]
... "How to Use" is important; reading the entire thing every meeting isn't practical
15:07:36 [Ralph]
... I don't think we'd want to number the sections; we don't have a goal to prioritize
15:07:48 [wendyreid]
ack cwilso
15:07:49 [Ralph]
... we should keep it short and not attempt to restate everything or to prioritize
15:08:12 [Ralph]
Chris: mostly agree with Nick and David; this isn't something chairs would read -- the whole thing would take 8 minutes
15:08:32 [Ralph]
... it's important to give a clear boilerplate of what _should_ be read at every meeting
15:08:41 [Ralph]
... "this is the goal; some details are over here"
15:08:43 [dbooth]
+1 to chris's comment
15:09:00 [Ralph]
Wendy: I can further clarify How to Use
15:09:15 [npdoty]
q+
15:09:16 [dbooth]
q+ to suggest that we decide a target length
15:09:20 [Ralph]
... and change the ordered list to a bullet list
15:09:28 [wendyreid]
ack npdoty
15:09:30 [Ralph]
... we definitely didn't intend that the entire thing be read
15:09:36 [Ralph]
Nick: where is this document going?
15:09:47 [Ralph]
... should I comment further in the PR?
15:09:58 [Ralph]
Wendy: it will probably stay in this repo
15:10:04 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:10:04 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to suggest that we decide a target length
15:10:04 [Ralph]
... it might be added to /Guide
15:10:28 [Ralph]
DBooth: it would be good to decide how long each moderator should speak about it and use that as a target
15:10:35 [Ralph]
Wendy: under 2 mins probably
15:10:38 [cwilso]
q+
15:10:41 [Ralph]
... it doesn't need to be read weekly
15:10:53 [wendyreid]
ack cwilso
15:11:01 [Ralph]
... if you are starting a new cycle of [group] meetings or have a lot of new participants, or a workshop event
15:11:11 [npdoty]
yeah, we might ask other chairs, but I think a few sentences at the beginning of the meeting is typical/accessible. maybe 1 minute at the beginning of every group meeting?
15:11:12 [Ralph]
Chris: I really like the idea of saying "here is an intro to the CEPC"
15:11:33 [Ralph]
... I might sugggest an elevator pitch; why is CEPC important, or what are the "surprising" parts
15:11:37 [Ralph]
s/ggg/gg
15:11:53 [Ralph]
... e.g. the safety vs comfort point is really important
15:12:11 [dbooth]
q+ to suggest two separate narrations: One for the first time at a meeting; a second to be read (or done) at each meeting
15:12:13 [npdoty]
+1 to including "surprising parts" in the short callouts
15:12:33 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:12:33 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to suggest two separate narrations: One for the first time at a meeting; a second to be read (or done) at each meeting
15:12:42 [Ralph]
... I might think someone is making a completely wrong point in a meeting and I can say that respectfully, though they might still be offended
15:12:58 [Ralph]
DBooth: one version for the start of a new meeting series or when a bunch of new people ljoin
15:13:06 [Ralph]
... and a second version for the start of every meeting
15:13:16 [Ralph]
... I like the notion of highlighting one portion of the Code at each meeting
15:13:35 [Ralph]
Wendy: we can try to come up with an initial and a more casual version
15:14:01 [Ralph]
DBooth: "initial" vs "ongoing"
15:14:11 [dbooth]
Or Initial vs periodic
15:14:19 [Ralph]
Wendy: we'll use these comments and make another revision
15:14:48 [Ralph]
DBooth: "preamble" isn't quite the right name for this; let's come up with a better one
15:14:58 [Ralph]
Wendy: "Intro to CEPC" perhaps
15:15:04 [npdoty]
I'm happy to have some brief repetition; rarely are the exact same people attending each meeting, and sometimes people need reminders in order to adjust behaviors
15:15:07 [wendyreid]
Topic: AC Moderation
15:15:10 [wendyreid]
https://www.w3.org/2023/02/21-ac-minutes.html
15:15:43 [Ralph]
Wendy: I attended one of the Member Meeting sessions last week where there was discussion of the w3c-ac-forum mailing list
15:15:57 [Ralph]
... sometimes that list is quiet, sometimes it is very busy and not always with a positive tenor
15:16:09 [Ralph]
... there was discussion of introducing a concept of moderation to the list
15:16:21 [Ralph]
... to maintain positive conversation
15:16:35 [Ralph]
... and when the list is quiet to figure out how to engage members more
15:16:59 [dbooth]
q+ to ask what is being requested of this group regarding the AC list?
15:17:34 [npdoty]
q+ for us to provide recommendations about all groups and all lists, and include the AC list
15:17:35 [Ralph]
Chris: there was some request to have moderation on ac-forum
15:17:41 [Ralph]
... what form that would take is an open question
15:17:52 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:17:52 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to ask what is being requested of this group regarding the AC list?
15:17:52 [Ralph]
... this lies somewhere between PWE CG and the AB
15:18:01 [Ralph]
DBooth: was there a specific ask of this group?
15:18:11 [wendyreid]
ack npdoty
15:18:11 [Zakim]
npdoty, you wanted to discuss us to provide recommendations about all groups and all lists, and include the AC list
15:18:41 [Ralph]
Nick: the exact role of this CG is not certain but I would like us to provide a recommendation for all groups and all lists
15:18:43 [cwilso]
q+
15:18:49 [Ralph]
... that all mailing lists should be moderated
15:18:58 [Ralph]
... set that expectation for the Team and for all groups
15:19:05 [Ralph]
... ac-forum is not currently moderated
15:19:11 [wendyreid]
cwilso:
15:19:17 [Ralph]
... I'd like us to recommend to the AB that they nominate someone to moderate that list
15:19:17 [wendyreid]
ack cwilso
15:19:54 [Ralph]
Chris: I see in the minutes that Avneesh suggested this is about moderating, not chairing
15:19:57 [dbooth]
q+ to agree with moderating all list. Each list carries a responsibility.
15:20:08 [Ralph]
... part of my role at Google is to do the moderation, both internally and externally
15:20:08 [wendyreid]
q+
15:20:14 [Ralph]
... that's a really hard role in such an open-ended forum
15:20:23 [Ralph]
... I worry how to set the bar
15:20:38 [Ralph]
... one of the challenges noted in the minutes is how to be concise; some emails are long-winded
15:20:55 [Ralph]
... how do you steer and moderate a conversation without shutting people down?
15:21:18 [Ralph]
... I've seen cases of very close moderation and that feels exclusionary
15:21:23 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:21:23 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to agree with moderating all list. Each list carries a responsibility.
15:21:34 [Ralph]
DBooth: I agree that every list should be moderated; that should be a default
15:21:42 [Ralph]
... every list that is created creates a responsibility
15:21:44 [wendyreid]
ack wendyreid
15:21:45 [npdoty]
i agree that it will be difficult, and that we will learn a lot as we practice it more
15:21:48 [Ralph]
... but I suggest light-handed moderation
15:22:23 [Ralph]
Wendy: I once suggested moderation of a list I was on and that blew up, resulting in many people leaving the list
15:22:50 [Ralph]
... people hear "moderator" and have several reactions; some think it is shutting down discussion, some think it's too late
15:23:22 [cwilso]
q+
15:23:32 [Ralph]
... the intent of a moderator is to keep the tenor in a right direction
15:23:47 [dbooth]
I recommend moderating for Code violations , but not generally against long-windedness.
15:23:47 [Ralph]
... we probably should write some guidelines for list moderators
15:24:10 [dbooth]
+1 to the idea of writing up moderation guidance
15:24:10 [Ralph]
... one suggestion from the meeting was to rotate the responsibility at 3 month intervals
15:24:11 [wendyreid]
ack cwilso
15:24:15 [Ralph]
... so it's not too heavy on any one person
15:24:19 [npdoty]
+1 for rotation (though I thought 1 month was way too brief a suggestion; maybe 1 year?)
15:24:33 [Ralph]
Chris: +1 to writing some guidance
15:24:43 [dbooth]
-1 to the idea of rotation
15:24:51 [Ralph]
... there are different levels of expectation on what we want from moderation
15:25:11 [dbooth]
q+ to explain why I think moderation should not be rotated -- at least not frequently
15:25:55 [Ralph]
... addressing the problem that people who are reluctant to jump into long threads may lead to a moderator having to restrict people who write a lot
15:26:37 [Ralph]
... I read through a recent message claiming a CEPC violation and determined that while the instance was not pleasant, it didn't violate CEPC
15:26:54 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:26:54 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to explain why I think moderation should not be rotated -- at least not frequently
15:27:01 [Ralph]
... it would be nice to have a "tone crossing guard"; someone who encourages discourse in the right direction
15:27:13 [Ralph]
DBooth: -1 to rotating moderators, at least on a rapid basis
15:27:29 [npdoty]
q+
15:27:33 [Ralph]
... this is incongruous with light-touch moderation
15:27:40 [cwilso]
+1 that there will be a fair amount of learning needed in moderation
15:27:46 [Ralph]
... rotation implies moderation requires a lot of work
15:27:55 [Ralph]
... and there's a learning curve to light moderation
15:28:07 [Ralph]
... moderation should only happen in cases of CEPC violations
15:28:13 [wendyreid]
ack npdoty
15:28:16 [Ralph]
... long-winded emails should not normally trigger moderation
15:28:32 [Ralph]
Nick: I support moderation but agree it should not be frequent moderation
15:28:49 [Ralph]
... moderation is useful so it doesn't become someone "in charge"
15:29:07 [Ralph]
... I'm hearing there might be interest in a work item to provide some recommendations
15:29:31 [Ralph]
... maybe it's just a paragraph or maybe it's a document
15:29:55 [Ralph]
Wendy: I think the default is the chair but maybe there's an intermediate level for people who don't yet feel ready to chair
15:30:13 [Ralph]
... I wouldn't want moderation guidance to be heavy-handed
15:30:28 [Ralph]
... "here are some things you might want to be aware of as a moderator"
15:30:45 [Ralph]
... things you might want to say when someone is starting to step out of line
15:30:49 [dbooth]
q+ to say I don't see moderation as a route to chairing, because that would lead to overly active moderation
15:30:55 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:30:55 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to say I don't see moderation as a route to chairing, because that would lead to overly active moderation
15:30:57 [Ralph]
... it shouldn't be long
15:31:02 [npdoty]
chair can be the default moderator, but there can be other moderators
15:31:11 [Ralph]
DBooth: I'd be cautious as viewing moderation as a route to chairing
15:31:27 [Ralph]
Wendy: I think of it as an opportunity to increased responsibility
15:31:49 [Ralph]
... e.g. some groups have task force chairs as a route to more responsibility
15:32:05 [Ralph]
DBooth: we don't want a moderator who is aspiring to be a chair
15:32:11 [dbooth]
q+ To volunteer to draft something
15:32:16 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:32:16 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to volunteer to draft something
15:32:26 [npdoty]
happy to help review
15:32:26 [Ralph]
... I volunteer to start drafting something
15:32:40 [Ralph]
Wendy: great; do a markdown document and open a PR
15:32:46 [Ralph]
... "Moderation Guidance"
15:32:50 [dbooth]
ACTION: David to draft moderation guidance
15:32:58 [wendyreid]
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls
15:33:02 [wendyreid]
Topic: Open PRs
15:33:52 [Ralph]
-> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/227 ins "and" #227
15:34:04 [Ralph]
Chris: #227 seems easy to merge!
15:34:10 [Ralph]
Wendy: yep; doesn't seem contentious
15:34:12 [dbooth]
+1 to merggoing 227
15:34:23 [npdoty]
243 also seems easy/useful to merge
15:34:50 [wendyreid]
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/243
15:35:11 [Ralph]
Wendy: I think I've address most of the comments on #243
15:35:12 [dbooth]
q+ to note outstanding renaming question
15:35:21 [npdoty]
+1 to merging 243
15:35:29 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:35:29 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to note outstanding renaming question
15:36:08 [Ralph]
DBooth: on the last call we discussed renaming and whether to use the word "Professional"
15:36:19 [Ralph]
... that would slightly affect the wording
15:36:29 [npdoty]
yeah, once we re-name, we will need to re-name in many places :)
15:36:38 [Ralph]
Wendy: I have another PR that shows what it would look like to change "CEPC" to "Code of Conduct"
15:37:00 [Ralph]
... is the contributing practice clear?
15:37:33 [cwilso]
+1
15:37:42 [Ralph]
DBooth: I had some suggestions
15:37:50 [Ralph]
Wendy: I think I addressed all but the renaming one
15:38:10 [dbooth]
LGTM!
15:38:25 [npdoty]
grammatically, I think " We ask that participants do not open" would typically be " We ask that participants not open"
15:38:28 [dbooth]
+1 to merging
15:39:22 [dbooth]
q+
15:39:33 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:39:33 [Ralph]
Wendy: I'll fix "... do not open" and merge
15:39:50 [Ralph]
DBooth: a mistake I made was to submit a large set of issues all at once
15:40:13 [Ralph]
... should we ask people not to submit all at once?
15:40:25 [Ralph]
Wendy: I would not want someone to forget to submit their issue
15:40:42 [Ralph]
... I would much rather have all the issues and then decide how to work through them
15:41:01 [Ralph]
... we can figure out how to deal with a large bunch of issues
15:41:01 [wendyreid]
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/238
15:41:03 [Ralph]
DBooth: OK
15:41:44 [wendyreid]
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237/files
15:41:49 [dbooth]
+q
15:41:58 [Ralph]
Wendy: #232 is about removing patronizing language; there are two approaches
15:42:04 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:42:58 [Ralph]
DBooth: the background on my suggested rewording is in part some confusion between things that are definitely patronizing and some that may be perceived as patronizing
15:43:10 [Ralph]
... can we get a sense of which general approach the group prefers?
15:43:37 [Ralph]
Wendy: David's comments helped me figure out an issue I had that I had not been able to articulate
15:43:55 [Ralph]
... previously we had the patronizing language section as part of microaggression
15:44:23 [Ralph]
... but patronizing language can apply in other cases, so I decided to move it out from under microaggression
15:44:34 [Ralph]
... the second part is to define what it means to be patronizing
15:44:50 [Ralph]
... if you make too many assumptions about people that can lead to patronizing behavior
15:45:21 [Ralph]
... I also decided to remove some of the examples; it's not always the case that a specific phrase indicates someone is being patronizing
15:45:26 [Ralph]
... it's context-dependent
15:45:36 [Ralph]
... that is the approach I tried to take
15:45:46 [Ralph]
DBooth: fine to move the patronizing section
15:46:03 [npdoty]
I tend to like the organization of 237, having different sub-lists for patronizing and microagressions
15:46:10 [Ralph]
... I agree that "well, actually ..." isn't necessarily patronizing but it's a trigger phrase for some
15:46:18 [wendyreid]
q?
15:46:21 [Ralph]
... I was glad to learn that it can be a trigger phrase
15:46:46 [Ralph]
... on examples: I like having them, particularly examples I can learn from
15:47:05 [Ralph]
... examples have to be clear on why they are included or be explained why they are included
15:47:19 [Ralph]
... "well, actually..." needed explanation for me
15:47:57 [Ralph]
Wendy: any preferences for which PR to merge?
15:48:02 [dbooth]
q+ to ask if the gorup thinks we should move the patronizing section
15:48:06 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:48:06 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to ask if the gorup thinks we should move the patronizing section
15:48:59 [wendyreid]
ack Ralph
15:48:59 [Ralph]
Chris: I'm on the fence
15:49:11 [wendyreid]
Ralph: My intuition is that it lives better on its own
15:49:19 [dbooth]
ralph: Patronizing Lives better on its own.
15:49:42 [cwilso]
q+
15:49:45 [wendyreid]
... you might not have intended an aggression, but all of CEPC is often unintended, but it's useful to distinguish between microagressions intended or otherwise
15:50:11 [wendyreid]
ack cwilso
15:50:18 [dbooth]
q+ to suggest I move that part in pr 238
15:50:21 [Ralph]
Chris: thinking through a test case ...
15:50:35 [Ralph]
... there was definitely patronizing language in use
15:51:00 [Ralph]
... after discussing it with the person who felt affected, it wasn't a repeated pattern; it was a single instance of a microaggression
15:51:39 [Ralph]
... so there would be a light-handed response: "what you just said was condescending"
15:51:39 [Ralph]
... all of the things under microaggression are sort-of patronizing behaviour
15:51:57 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:51:57 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to suggest I move that part in pr 238
15:52:04 [Ralph]
... but they should not be "gotten over" when they are continued patterns
15:52:13 [Ralph]
DBooth: I'm fine either way; moving or not
15:52:43 [Ralph]
... the differences I tried to make in my PR #238 was to change how "well, actually ..." was being described and dropped the "grandmother" example
15:53:03 [Ralph]
... I specifically tried to highlight "thug" as something that now carries racial undertones to some
15:53:27 [Ralph]
Wendy: for #238 I'd keep the trigger phrases
15:53:46 [Ralph]
... I'd like to move away from using examples of offensive language
15:54:20 [Ralph]
... patronizing language becomes more of a problem when it is repeated
15:54:26 [dbooth]
q+ to understand why examples of offensive language feels wrong?
15:54:39 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:54:39 [Zakim]
dbooth, you wanted to understand why examples of offensive language feels wrong?
15:54:57 [Ralph]
DBooth: why don't you want to include examples of offensive language?
15:54:57 [cwilso]
q+
15:55:26 [wendyreid]
ack cwilso
15:55:29 [Ralph]
Wendy: my personal view: I don't like reinforcing offensive language by using it
15:55:35 [Ralph]
Chris: I hear that concern
15:56:11 [Ralph]
... one of the challenges is that for some of these terms there is no initial concept to reinforce
15:56:55 [Ralph]
... I'm sure I've used some of these phrases in the past before it was pointed out to me that they have certain undertones to some
15:57:08 [Ralph]
... when you don't have the background of those connotations it's useful to point them out
15:57:54 [Ralph]
Wendy: I understand; there's value in learning the background of some of these
15:58:17 [Ralph]
... e.g. I'm working on learning to avoid ableist language
15:58:45 [Ralph]
... we're learning every day about history of some terms
15:59:03 [dbooth]
ACTION: David to move patronizing section in PR 238
15:59:09 [Ralph]
Wendy: productive session ;thank you
15:59:12 [Ralph]
[adjourned]
15:59:15 [Ralph]
zakim, end meeting
15:59:15 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been dbooth, cwilso, wendyreid, uxjennifer, tzviya, npd, Ralph, Nick, Doty, npdoty
15:59:18 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:59:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:59:28 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
15:59:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pwe
15:59:38 [wendyreid]
rrsagent, bye
15:59:38 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-actions.rdf :
15:59:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: David to draft moderation guidance [1]
15:59:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc#T15-32-50
15:59:38 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: David to move patronizing section in PR 238 [2]
15:59:38 [RRSAgent]
recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc#T15-59-03
15:59:38 [Ralph]
present: DBooth, CWilso, WendyReid, NickDoty, Ralph
15:59:42 [Ralph]
regrets: Tzviya
16:00:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pwe
16:00:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc
16:00:54 [Ralph]
present: DBooth, CWilso, WendyReid, NickDoty, Ralph
16:01:12 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
16:01:16 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:01:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
16:01:29 [wendyreid]
Zakim is such a gentlebot now
16:02:02 [wendyreid]
rrsagent, bye
16:02:02 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items