Meeting minutes
<tzviya> present
<tzviya> date: 2023-03-14
Intro to CEPC
<tzviya> w3c/
tzviya: Wendy made a number of edits, hopefully ppl had a chance to look through them
<tzviya> https://
jen: I think we collaborated in the issues
dbooth: my overall feeling was we shouldn't try to duplicate what's in the main text
tzviya: Wendy took that feedback into account; maybe we should review after everyone has a chance to review the updated edits.
tzviya: Ralph told me we have two people from the team to work on the TPAC inclusion team.
… we should have all materials ready to announce at the AC meeting that we're seeking donors
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls
tzviya: PR on patronizing language: where did we end up?
<Ralph> previous meeting 28-Feb
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
… so I did an alternate PR to address the issues. We should decide which approach we prefer
tzviya: We should wait until Wendy is here.
[wendy appears as if magically summoned]
wendy: this came down to multiple approaches. This PR moves patronizing language outside of microaggressions.
<Ralph> 28-Feb discussion of patronizing language
wendy: now we just need to choose which approach we prefer
… I ended up changing the language a bit, because there were a lot of caveats and I was trying to broaden it
… also added something around your personal experience being critical to understanding.
<dbooth> https://
<sheila> +1 Tzviya, that's my concern too
chris: this mixes a few things: moving patronizing language out from microaggressions, but also minor things like examples of racially charged languages.
tzviya: that's similar to my concern
<sheila> "such as language that implies"
tzviya: patronizing language is about language, not intent, which I think doesn't come out in #238
wendy: happy to go back and edit my PR to reintroduce examples, etc.
… we should better balance the handling of intent
jen: the very last sentence is the big key; any of the stuff in the CEPC is about impact
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask what would be suggested to take intent out?
jen: we have to ask for consent a lot more; this PR got a little hot
dbooth: what should we change to take out intent?
tzviya: this isn't taking out intent - we should focus more on intent and impact.
shelia: we could use wording like "such as language that implies"
<Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to ask about order
Jen: clarifying: the only people that should be making PRs are... ?
Tzviya: generally the Editors, but there are times we will ask others to make PRs
… Wendy will work on this one
<tzviya> w3c/
<tzviya> w3c/
Tzviya: Safety and comfort: David made a PR (239), I made a narrower change in PR 251
… there is a lot of history here.
… Mostly this was moving the section out; it also makes it clearer what it means to priortize safety over comfort
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.
… Also, explain why the ombuds might choose not to act on a claim.
tzviya: we don't talk about what ombuds do or do not here; I really don't want to cover that in this section.
… this is not documentation of what ombuds should do, other than as the groundwork for expected behavior.
<sheila> agreed, the grievance policy and subsequent trainings should address this, not this artifact
wendy: +1, ombuds should not be directed by the CePC directly
dbooth: makes sense. I hadn't been thinking of it that was, but I see how it came out.
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"
… we don't define what "harassment" is, e.g.
… that's to be taken up in the case of a violation.
… 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.
dbooth: I still feel like it would be important to describe what the difference is; otherwise it feels like it's coded language.
… I read "safety vs comfort" and was confused, then saw things that would not be acceptable.
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.
… we need to change how we behave and interact with each other
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
… I am in support of further language, but we shouldn't go into "this is a violation" - everything is very dependent on context.
… "Maybe it wasn't that bad"
… we should not enable rules lawyers
<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.
<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.
<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.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about origin of this language
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: this is where we got the original language from
… it took an awful lot to get that language through
<dbooth> +1 to linking to examples
sheila: is it possible to link to articles about comfort vs safety?
… there has been a lot of great work on this, and perhaps we could build on that.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to talk about ambiguity
<sheila> there's a difference between
dbooth: I like the idea of linking to examples. I'm really concerned about the idea of being intentionally ambiguous.
<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.
dbooth: it's fine to be intentionally broad, but not intentionally ambiguous
<dbooth> +1 to be high level, rather than ambiguous
sheila: The intention is not to be ambiguous; but to make the CEPC applicable to multiple situations
… we should not be prescriptive on specific circumstances
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to respond
tzviya: this is not a situation that we will write test cases against
+1
<wendyreid> +1
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
tzviya: I will rework this PR to adapt the language
sheila: I can help
<wendyreid> https://
tzviya: let's take a look at the draft guidelines: w3c/
Draft Moderation Guidelines
dbooth: Nigel suggested some minor things
wendy: this looks like a good start. I'd move the rarely needed to always needed - the moderators do need to do these regularly.
… moderators do need to ensure groups are productive
<tzviya> https://
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to refer to conflict resolution
tzviya: we have moderator guidelines in the dispute resolution guidelines; we should refer to this for
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to incomporporate the suggestion
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
dbooth: happy to make the changes discussed today
<wendyreid> +1 to including GH
tzviya: we never did decide on CEPC vs CPC vs COC. We need to do that
COC
<tzviya> CEPC (or COC)
<sheila> I honestly have no preference, sorry
<wendyreid> CEPC / COC
<JenStrickland> COC
<dbooth> -1 for CEPC
<JenStrickland> but only because I think the other things are confusing folks.
dbooth: there were several votes for CPC before
<dbooth> -1 for CEPC
<dbooth> +0 for COC or CPC
tzviya: CPC is not a term in common knowledge; if we want a W3C-specific term, we already have CePC.
<wendyreid> w3c/
tzviya: seems like we have some impetus to move to CoC
… and we already have a PR that moves to that, although it needs some updating.
<sheila> I marginally prefer COC to CEPC, if that helps. mostly I vote in favor of resolving this soon and forever lol