13:57:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:57:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/14-pwe-irc
13:57:36 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
13:59:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pwe
14:00:26 <tzviya> zakim, start the meeting
14:00:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:00:27 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
14:00:29 <cwilso> present+
14:00:55 <tzviya> present
14:01:01 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya
14:01:09 <tzviya> date: 2023-03-14
14:02:29 <cwilso> scribe+
14:02:52 <tzviya> topic: Intro to CEPC
14:02:57 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/246
14:03:25 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
14:03:36 <cwilso> tzviya: Wendy made a number of edits, hopefully ppl had a chance to look through them
14:03:39 <JenStrickland> present+
14:03:46 <cwilso> present+ tzviya shelia
14:03:58 <cwilso> present+ dbooth
14:04:11 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/246/commits/4566157e54d15befd4f5387f5594ec9dd010f971
14:04:15 <cwilso> jen: I think we collaborated in the issues
14:04:48 <cwilso> dbooth: my overall feeling was we shouldn't try to duplicate what's in the main text
14:05:26 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
14:05:29 <cwilso> tzviya: Wendy took that feedback into account; maybe we should review after everyone has a chance to review the updated edits.
14:05:38 <Ralph> present+
14:06:09 <cwilso> tzviya: Ralph told me we have two people from the team to work on the TPAC inclusion team.
14:06:27 <dbooth> present+
14:06:35 <cwilso> ...we should have all materials ready to announce at the AC meeting that we're seeking donors
14:06:51 <tzviya> Topic: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls
14:07:14 <JenStrickland> q+
14:07:25 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:08:03 <cwilso> tzviya: PR on patronizing language: where did we end up?
14:08:24 <cwilso> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237
14:08:39 <dbooth> q+
14:08:43 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:09:09 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-minutes.html previous meeting 28-Feb
14:09:14 <cwilso> dbooth: Wendy did a PR trying to incorporate comments, but when I read that it didn't seem to fully address the issues I'd raised
14:09:37 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:09:44 <cwilso> ...so I did an alternate PR to address the issues.  We should decide which approach we prefer
14:09:53 <cwilso> tzviya: We should wait until Wendy is here.
14:09:53 <wendyreid> present+
14:10:09 <cwilso> [wendy appears as if magically summoned]
14:11:48 <cwilso> wendy: this came down to multiple approaches.  This PR moves patronizing language outside of microaggressions.
14:11:51 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-minutes.html#x257 28-Feb discussion of patronizing language
14:12:04 <cwilso> ...now we just need to choose which approach we prefer
14:12:17 <cwilso> q+
14:12:41 <cwilso> ... I ended up changing the language a bit, because there were a lot of caveats and I was trying to broaden it
14:13:22 <tzviya> q+
14:13:31 <cwilso> ... also added something around your personal experience being critical to understanding.
14:13:47 <dbooth> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/238/files
14:13:54 <tzviya> ack cw
14:15:02 <tzviya> ack tz
14:15:37 <sheila> +1 Tzviya, that's my concern too
14:15:45 <cwilso> chris: this mixes a few things: moving patronizing language out from microaggressions, but also minor things like examples of racially charged languages.
14:15:54 <cwilso> tzviya: that's similar to my concern
14:16:31 <wendyreid> q+
14:16:42 <tzviya> ack we
14:16:49 <sheila> "such as language that implies"
14:16:56 <cwilso> ...patronizing language is about language, not intent, which I think doesn't come out in #238
14:17:30 <cwilso> wendy: happy to go back and edit my PR to reintroduce examples, etc.
14:17:47 <JenStrickland> q+
14:17:54 <cwilso> ...we should better balance the handling of intent
14:18:02 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:18:36 <dbooth> q+ To ask what would be suggested to take intent out?
14:19:05 <cwilso> jen: the very last sentence is the big key; any of the stuff in the CEPC is about impact
14:20:25 <tzviya> ack db
14:20:25 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask what would be suggested to take intent out?
14:20:27 <cwilso> ...we have to ask for consent a lot more;  this PR got a little hot
14:20:56 <cwilso> dbooth: what should we change to take out intent?
14:21:16 <cwilso> tzviya: this isn't taking out intent - we should focus more on intent and impact.
14:21:38 <cwilso> shelia: we could use wording like "such as language that implies"
14:21:47 <JenStrickland> q+ to ask about order
14:21:50 <tzviya> ack je
14:21:50 <Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to ask about order
14:22:15 <cwilso> Jen: clarifying: the only people that should be making PRs are... ?
14:22:34 <cwilso> Tzviya: generally the Editors, but there are times we will ask others to make PRs
14:22:49 <cwilso> ... Wendy will work on this one
14:23:36 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/239
14:23:49 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/251
14:23:53 <cwilso> ... Safety and comfort: David made a PR (239), I made a narrower change in PR 251
14:24:16 <cwilso> ... there is a lot of history here.
14:25:29 <cwilso> ...Mostly this was moving the section out; it also makes it clearer what it means to priortize safety over comfort
14:26:30 <cwilso> dbooth: I felt this section would benefit from more explanation; it says it's okay to say "go away" or "I'm not discussing this with you" in some situations, but in others it's not okay.
14:26:43 <cwilso> ...Also, explain why the ombuds might choose not to act on a claim.
14:27:32 <cwilso> tzviya: we don't talk about what ombuds do or do not here; I really don't want to cover that in this section.
14:28:02 <cwilso> ... this is not documentation of what ombuds should do, other than as the groundwork for expected behavior.
14:28:34 <sheila> agreed, the grievance policy and subsequent trainings should address this, not this artifact
14:28:54 <cwilso> wendy: +1, ombuds should not be directed by the CePC directly
14:29:17 <cwilso> dbooth: makes sense.  I hadn't been thinking of it that was, but I see how it came out.
14:30:08 <cwilso> tzviya: I want to talk through going into a lot of detail in this section.  We have to walk a fine line in the CEPC between detailing expected behavior and enabling "but I followed the letter of the law"
14:30:19 <cwilso> ...we don't define what "harassment" is, e.g.
14:30:30 <cwilso> ... that's to be taken up in the case of a violation.
14:31:10 <dbooth> q+
14:31:13 <tzviya> ack db
14:31:17 <cwilso> ...it gets tricky in defining, e.g., when it's okay to say "go away", because sometimes it's about safety, sometimes it is not.
14:31:45 <cwilso> dbooth: I still feel like it would be important to describe what the difference is; otherwise it feels like it's coded language.
14:31:48 <cwilso> q+
14:31:48 <JenStrickland> q+
14:31:52 <cwilso> q- later
14:32:28 <cwilso> ...I read "safety vs comfort" and was confused, then saw things that would not be acceptable.
14:32:33 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:34:27 <cwilso> Jen: I've been in situations where I was on the line of feeling called out , and close to calling for "I want out of this situation".  Person being told that needs to know it is a point of safety/space.
14:34:33 <wendyreid> q+
14:34:39 <cwilso> q- later
14:34:59 <cwilso> ...we need to change how we behave and interact with each other
14:35:18 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:36:42 <cwilso> Wendy: my issue with the text as suggested is that I don't like talking about things as a violation of the code - we talk about the reasonable communication of boundaries.  Overwhelmingly, communication of boundaries is supported
14:36:44 <tzviya> q+ to talk about origin of this language
14:37:14 <cwilso> ... I am in support of further language, but we shouldn't go into "this is a violation" - everything is very dependent on context.
14:37:25 <cwilso> ..."Maybe it wasn't that bad"
14:37:34 <cwilso> ... we should not enable rules lawyers
14:37:42 <sheila> q+
14:37:44 <tzviya> ack cw
14:38:56 <dbooth> chris: Wildly supportive of what wendy and jen have been saying.  There'a alot of context here that is important to understand.  The liklihood of "go away" as a safety issue is low.  But I might say that in some situation, and i've sometimes walkked out when it was a safety issue for me.
14:39:38 <dbooth> ... We cannot litigate that in this doc.  We can't say "this is the situation where it's okay and this is where it is not".  Don't want to enable people to use these exmaples as excuses.
14:40:42 <dbooth> ... Sent to the group a while ago, there's an intent behind the CPC.  Trying to capture that.  If someone tells me "go away", I need to respect that.  Need to enable this as a tool for safety, not comfort.
14:40:45 <tzviya> ack tz
14:40:45 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about origin of this language
14:40:47 <tzviya> https://geekfeminismdotorg.wordpress.com/about/code-of-conduct/
14:41:03 <cwilso> tzviya: this is where we got the original language from
14:41:29 <cwilso> ... it took an awful lot to get that language through
14:42:00 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:42:23 <dbooth> +1 to linking to examples
14:42:26 <cwilso> sheila: is it possible to link to articles about comfort vs safety?
14:43:42 <cwilso> ...there has been a lot of great work on this, and perhaps we could build on that.
14:43:42 <dbooth> q+ about abiguity
14:44:10 <cwilso> q+ dbooth to talk about ambiguity
14:44:14 <cwilso> ack about
14:44:17 <cwilso> ack abiguity
14:44:23 <tzviya> ack db
14:44:23 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to talk about ambiguity
14:44:47 <sheila> there's a difference between
14:44:49 <cwilso> dbooth: I like the idea of linking to examples.  I'm really concerned about the idea of being intentionally ambiguous.
14:44:52 <dbooth> I am deeply concerned about being intentionally ambiguous.  People need to understand the CPC.   I think it's okay to be intentionally broad, but not ambiguous.
14:45:07 <cwilso> ...it's fine to be intentionally broad, but not intentionally ambiguous
14:45:13 <sheila> q+
14:45:32 <cwilso> q+ to respond to "intentionally ambiguous"
14:45:35 <tzviya> ack sh
14:46:06 <dbooth> +1 to be high level, rather than ambiguous
14:46:14 <cwilso> sheila: The intention is not to be ambiguous; but to make the CEPC applicable to multiple situations
14:46:16 <cwilso> q-
14:46:42 <dbooth> q+ to respond
14:46:52 <cwilso> ...we should not be prescriptive on specific circumstances
14:46:58 <tzviya> ack d
14:46:58 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to respond
14:47:09 <cwilso> tzviya: this is not a situation that we will write test cases against
14:47:11 <cwilso> +1
14:47:14 <wendyreid> +1
14:48:02 <cwilso> dbooth: I think it's okay to use examples; if people try to treat examples as an exhaustive list, that seems like a violation of the CEPC itself
14:48:35 <cwilso> tzviya: I will rework this PR to adapt the language
14:48:51 <cwilso> sheila: I can help
14:49:29 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/248/files
14:49:30 <cwilso> tzviya: let's take a look at the draft guidelines: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/248
14:49:55 <tzviya> Topic: Draft Moderation Guidelines
14:50:39 <cwilso> dbooth: Nigel suggested some minor things
14:50:40 <wendyreid> q+
14:50:43 <tzviya> ack we
14:51:50 <cwilso> wendy: this looks like a good start.  I'd move the rarely needed to always needed - the moderators do need to do these regularly.
14:52:12 <cwilso> q+
14:52:12 <tzviya> q+ to refer to conflict resolution
14:52:20 <cwilso> q- later
14:52:39 <cwilso> ...moderators do need to ensure groups are productive
14:53:03 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/main/DisputeResolution.md
14:53:30 <tzviya> ack me
14:53:30 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to refer to conflict resolution
14:53:42 <tzviya> ack cw
14:53:45 <cwilso> tzviya: we have moderator guidelines in the dispute resolution guidelines; we should refer to this for
14:55:06 <dbooth> q+ to incomporporate the suggestion
14:55:10 <tzviya> ack db
14:55:10 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to incomporporate the suggestion
14:55:18 <cwilso> chris: I wanted to highlight Chris Needham's comment - we should make this applicable to github, et al - this is really about conversation management, not specifically mailing lists
14:55:31 <cwilso> dbooth: happy to make the changes discussed today
14:56:05 <wendyreid> +1 to including GH
14:56:05 <cwilso> tzviya: we never did decide on CEPC vs CPC vs COC.  We need to do that
14:57:14 <cwilso> COC
14:57:27 <tzviya> CEPC (or COC)
14:57:28 <sheila> I honestly have no preference, sorry
14:57:36 <wendyreid> CEPC / COC
14:57:42 <JenStrickland> COC
14:57:44 <dbooth> q+
14:57:44 <dbooth> -1 for CEPC
14:57:51 <tzviya> ack db
14:57:53 <JenStrickland> but only because I think the other things are confusing folks.
14:58:43 <cwilso> dbooth: there were several votes for CPC before
14:58:48 <dbooth> -1 for CEPC
14:59:05 <dbooth> +0 for COC or CPC
14:59:11 <cwilso> tzviya: CPC is not a term in common knowledge; if we want a W3C-specific term, we already have CePC.
14:59:30 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/245
14:59:41 <cwilso> ... seems like we have some impetus to move to CoC
15:00:04 <cwilso> ...and we already have a PR that moves to that, although it needs some updating.
15:00:25 <sheila> I marginally prefer COC to CEPC, if that helps. mostly I vote in favor of resolving this soon and forever lol
15:00:57 <cwilso> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/14-pwe-minutes.html cwilso
15:41:24 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
17:35:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
17:57:23 <Jem> Jem has joined #pwe
18:02:25 <networkException> networkException has joined #pwe
18:07:23 <npd> npd has joined #pwe
18:07:23 <Mike5Matrix> Mike5Matrix has joined #pwe