Meeting minutes
<Ralph> previous 11 April
<tzviya> Date: 2023-04-25
<tzviya> w3c/
Wendy: I added a definition of patronizing, since it can have more than 1 meaning in English. I took the Oxford definition.
… I also clarified examples and fixed a typo
Tzviya: I think we've already discussed all of this except conveys vs portrays
<sheila> a+
<sheila> sq+
Tzviya: we do want to get this nailed down prior to the AC meeting, ideally
sheila: on conveys vs betrays: I think conveys shows impact rather than intent. I would +1 keeping conveys vs betrays
+1
+1 to sheila
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to disagree
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond
david: I think there's an important element in the definition of patronizing: an element of intent, insult, deceit - this gets lost if this is changed to conveys
tzviya: we've been trying to get across in the document that intent frequently doesn't matter; impact does.
sheila: the definition is one thing; we're trying to capture something else. There's a reason this is called patronizing language rather than patronizing feelings.
<wendyreid> +1 to Sheila
cwilso: I agree with sheila. This document is about what other people are feeling. We don't want to leave room for someoen to say, "But, I didn't mean it." It is my responsibility.
+1 to sheilka
+1 to sheila
chris: +1; it's about impact not intent
wendy: context really matters.
<Ralph> wendyreid++
+1
wendyreid: above all this document is to provide guidance not offer guidance for punishment
david: I understand impact vs intent. But the concept of being patronizing is that if the recipient feels the other person was being sincere, it's not patronizing.
<dbooth> dbooth: "I understand the idea of impact vs intent, but the concept of being patronizing is that the recipient feels that the patronizer was being insulting, as opposed to being genuinely kind and helpful. That is an important distinction. If someone is being genuinely kind or helpful."
sheila: but "betrays" refers to the intent of the person who said it, not the person who heard it.
… sometimes the context of how someone is trying to be helpful can still be patronizing
+1
<dbooth> If recipient feels that the speaker is being genuinely kind or helpful, then the recipient does not feel patronized.
tzviya: <examples>
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to straw poll
cwilso: it also matters how others perceive what was said
<wendyreid> cwilso: It's not just about whether the recipient feels patronized either, relationship matters, but also others can discern whether something is patronizing
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on examples
<wendyreid> ... we're rabbit-holing
<sheila> +1 to a straw poll, once people have had a chance to share
Ralph: I found Tzviya's examples informative, I've never had it happen to me, but seen it happen to others
… calling it out helps others in the room to see that that behaviour is inappropriate
https://
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to straw poll
tzviya: POLL: ^^
+1
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I won't object to using "convey". I idont' think it's very important.
+1
dbooth: I'm concerned that I find most of these examples to be examples of something else, like prejudice or rudeness.
<sheila> patronizing language often stems from implicit bias or prejudice
^^
+1 sheila
wendy: most patronizing language does come from implicit bias. It can come from people who have positive intent, or are just being nice.
… we already say "don't be racist" and "don't be sexist". This is a pattern that isn't explicit.
<dbooth> dbooth: Suggest simplifying the patronizing section to: "Patronizing language or behavior, such as using language that insultingly implies the audience is uninformed on a topic, e.g., making statements like "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]"."
<sheila> +1 to Wendy re: the idea that that this section is an umbrella for a lot of other objectionable problem that manifest as patronizing language
+1 to wendyreid
wendy: the reality is that this isn't here to punish people, it's to help guide people.
+1 wendy
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to add comment on "readily found in any dictionary" and "doc from growing larger"
sheila: on "I don't think you understood", there are a lot of other ways to ensure comprehension that are not questioning ability to comprehend.
jem: we should not rely on dictionary definition alone; one may give up instead of looking up in the dictionary.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask dbooth a question
jem: it is also very useful to be able to point to the exact type of behavior detailed in the document.
Should we adopt PR #237
+1
<Ralph> +1 to merge #237
<dbooth> -1
<sheila> +1
+1
+1
<Jem> +1
<sheila> I think we spent an entire meeting discussing that exact issue
we did
<sheila> I don't think there's going to be consensus
<Jem> May we clarify "the assumption" "with prejudices", not just assumption?
<Ralph> 11 April discussion of #237 and #238
<Jem> I suggested the "qualtification"
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to tzviya
cwilso: this should cause people to think
… @@more
<dbooth> dbooth: I could live with keeping the example, but not with their current wording. I think the wording problems that I see could be relatively easily corrected, and I'd be happy to make suggestions to do so.
<Zakim> sheila, you wanted to ask a process question about how we proceed if there's a single dissenting voice?
<dbooth> Thanks Jenn, for your comments!
Jen: perhaps we should table this for a while
sheila: process-wise, I don't know what happens in this kind of case
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to answer process question
sheila++
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to make a decision
<dbooth> You did not see my next proposal yet.
tzviya: we are going to move on with this merge.
… next issue 240: w3c/
<Jem> I think David can open new issue although we close the issue 237.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say i think there's a simple path forward: I'll propose simple changes that would adequately address my concerns, while (I hope) retaining the important content that others believe are important.
tzviya: this issue is summarizing the code. there is some question about whether this is helpful or not.
<sheila> +1 Jemma, like the idea of merging and then David can open a new issue
wendy: I see both sides of this, but I agree with Tzviya that we really do want people to read the whole thing.
… I think maybe we need some opening text that captures the intent of the Code
… I don't want a really short version of what we've done, though
+1
<dbooth> jem and Sheila, process-wise, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to open a new issue on a closed issue. I think the process is for me to file a formal objection.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to improve the abstract
tzviya: we have an abstract, we could consider improving the abstract.
… rather than adding a summary
<dbooth> Putting it in the abstract seems like an adequate solution to me also.
ralph: I was going to make a similar comment: we shouldn't make an abbreviated version of the code.
<sheila> david, right, that makes sense - I was just suggesting as a potential alternative if you wanted to submit a NEW set of edits that weren't the same as the previous. but you're probably right that a formal objection would be best
ralph: 258 is about abstract
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to make comment re:summary
Ralph: see #258; it accomplishes helping people know why they should read this
<Ralph> scribe:
cwilso: the "TL;DR;" practice self-destructed when people realized that 50% of those would not read the full version
… if we say "here's the short version of the rules" then we're re-writing the rules
<dbooth> People routinely read only the abstract of a paper and skip the body.
tzviya: should we replace this with 258
david: is the idea to put this in the abstract?
tzviya: no: the abstract is something different, it is not intended to be a summary, but a declaration of value.
Proposal: Close #240, focus on #258 (revising abstract)
david: sounds fine, let's take that approach.
+1
+1 to close #240 without merging
+1
+1
<Jem> +1
<sheila> +1
<JenStrickland> +1
<dbooth> 0
RESOLUTION: Close #240, focus on #258 (revising abstract)
tzviya: proposed changes to microaggressions
… microagression can be a one-time thing, not just a repeated pattern, so I would disagree with that change
ralph: I'm less uncomfortable with this.
sheila: I agree with Tzviya that it doesn't need to be a pattern to count. Committing a single microagression warrants a discussion, and we should enable the document to capture that
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say a pattern is what matters.
<JenStrickland> +1 to Sheila's statement.
david: q+ to suggest text
david: pattern is really fundamental to the concept of microagressions.
<JenStrickland> Definition: noun: micro-aggression a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority. "students posed with dry-erase boards documenting their experiences with microaggressions on campus" indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group. "they are not subject to [CUT]
david: it's about cumulative effect.
+1
+1
<Jem> I hear that "pattern" can be in different layers. thanks, Sheila
https://
<dbooth> I agree that a pattern does not need to be restricted to one person. It certaainly can be a pattern across multiple individuals and time.
sheila: I've been to a lot of trainings that describe microaggressions, it's not been described as patterns.
I wanted to point to Microaggression is a term used for commonplace daily verbal, behavioral or environmental slights, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups.[1]
(Wikipedia defn)
<dbooth> thank you!
i.e., the definition we are referencing is about individual slights, not patterns.
<dbooth> The meeting adjourned 5 hours ago. But in reviewing the minutes, I see that they do not adequately capture what happened when PR 237 was closed. I am appending further explanation here.
<dbooth> Others should please correct me if you think I get anything wrong. What happened:
<dbooth> 1. A straw poll was taken on the proposal to merge PR 237. Six members voted to merge, and one (DBooth) voted against merging.
<dbooth> 2. Someone asked what to do if consensus is not reached. Chris said that there is a provision in the W3C process for the chair to make a decision without consensus.
<dbooth> 3. DBooth offered to try to resolve the lack of consensus by proposing "simple changes that would adequately address my concerns, while (I hope) retaining the important content that others believe are important".
<dbooth> 4. The chair made a decision to merge PR 237 in spite of the lack of consensus, without a taking a binding group vote, and without considering DBooth's offer to further try to reach consensus.
<dbooth> 5. Two others suggested in IRC that DBooth should submit new issues against the newly merged text.
<dbooth> 6. DBooth pointed out in IRC that "process-wise, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to open a new issue on a closed issue. I think the process is for me to file a formal objection".