13:34:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:34:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-irc
13:35:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pwe
13:35:36 <tzviya> Meeting: PWE
13:35:43 <tzviya> Date: 2023-05-23
13:35:49 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya, Wendy
13:57:24 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
13:57:34 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
13:57:55 <dbooth> zakim, start meeting
13:57:55 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:57:57 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
13:58:01 <dbooth> present+
14:00:31 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:00:47 <wendyreid> present+
14:02:52 <tzviya> present+
14:02:57 <tzviya> regrets+ Jemma
14:03:07 <Ralph> present+
14:03:12 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
14:03:24 <dbooth> Scribe: David Booth
14:03:30 <dbooth> Topic: About the group
14:04:15 <dbooth> tzviya: We're not a regular WG.  Need to put safety of under-rep groups over  comfort of others.  Need to ask if you can live with what's in this doc.
14:04:24 <sheila> appreciate this sentiment, thanks
14:04:52 <cwilso> present+
14:04:58 <dbooth> Topic: Ombud proposal
14:05:01 <Ralph> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2023May/0004.html
14:05:26 <dbooth> tz: I sent the budget to the finance committee.
14:06:03 <dbooth> ... We set up interview doc.  heila and Judy Brewer put together the interview process -- selection of W3C people and Team.  Need to decide who.
14:06:15 <dbooth> ... Suggest Sheila work on that.
14:06:30 <dbooth> ... Ralph, team suggestions?  Perhaps someone from the board?
14:06:59 <dbooth> ralph: We'lll have to talk.
14:07:35 <tzviya> q?
14:07:36 <dbooth> tz: Need to put out the call for interviews -- 4 ombuds, one from each region.  Want both qualifications and diversity.
14:07:40 <sheila> happy to help
14:08:28 <dbooth> tz:  Board peronnel committee is busy working on CEO selection.
14:08:50 <dbooth> Topic: CoC schedule and planning
14:09:16 <dbooth> wendy: We added a section to the doc that outlines our  yearly revision process.
14:09:25 <dbooth> ... From March onward we enter a reviion cycle.
14:09:55 <dbooth> ... Goal is by the end of June to have everything in a good state to send for review by AB and AC.
14:10:17 <dbooth> ... Goal this year is to get that in by July so that a new version w be ready by TPAC.
14:10:37 <Ralph> i|Topic:|-> https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html previous 25 April
14:10:57 <dbooth> ... We're on track.  This is the first time we're doing a proper revision.  Want to close PRs we have, wrap up issues and get it off for review.
14:11:09 <sheila> q+ for quick clarifying question
14:11:27 <dbooth> ... Mid-june w trigger review within the group too.
14:12:15 <dbooth> tz: Last time we did this it was a total rewrite, and a heavy lift for the AB to review.
14:12:24 <dbooth> ... This time I think they're watching more.
14:12:51 <dbooth> ... We'll ee what the AC says.  Didn't get much comment from them last time.
14:13:13 <dbooth> ... Depending on Process 2023 we may or may not need Director approval.
14:13:24 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:14:08 <dbooth> ralph: You expect to send this to AB for review and comments?  And then send to AC?   What's the next level of detail about the sched?
14:14:27 <dbooth> ... How many weeks after this group's approval?
14:14:45 <dbooth> ... Previsouly there was confusion and debate about what was needed.
14:15:05 <dbooth> tz: i'll check.   We can ask the AB to start reviewing it now.
14:15:12 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:15:12 <Zakim> sheila, you wanted to discuss quick clarifying question
14:15:38 <cwilso> q+
14:15:46 <dbooth> sheila: Florian asked me: Thy're updating the Prcess doc.  Would it be appropriate to change it to CoC preemptively?
14:16:00 <dbooth> ... I think i'ts harmless to do.
14:16:05 <dbooth> +1 to preemptively changing
14:16:09 <tzviya> ack cw
14:16:12 <dbooth> wendy: Fine to me.
14:16:54 <dbooth> chris: No requirements on how long for AB to review.  Not positive we want to do a forward naming, becaues it would be weird to change to point to a doc that doesn't exist yet.
14:17:01 <dbooth> sheila: The link would still work.
14:17:20 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#GAProcess 11. Process Evolution
14:17:41 <dbooth> ralph: I concur w CHris, there's no particular duration of review required, but eh AB formally owns this doc, so it's uup to them to decide hoow long they want to review it.
14:18:09 <dbooth> ... .on naming, I strongly discourage asking the AB to change thename before it's formally changed.
14:18:26 <dbooth> ... Important for our constitution to be self-consistent.
14:19:01 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:19:01 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on naming
14:19:03 <sheila> makes sense, thanks
14:19:05 <dbooth> ... i also suggest to Florian that an editorial note could be added indicating that the name may change.
14:19:08 <tzviya> q?
14:20:29 <dbooth> tz: AC gets 28 days to review
14:21:09 <dbooth> wendy: If we can go tto AB mid july and AC beginning of Aug.  Or more like beginning of July for AB.
14:21:17 <Ralph> s/no particular duration of review required, but eh AB/no particular duration of AB review required, but the AB
14:22:09 <Ralph> s/asking the AB to change thename before it's formally changed/asking the AB to change the reference in Process before CoC is formally published
14:22:22 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22CEPC+2023%22
14:22:51 <dbooth> Topic: Editing the Abstract PR 292
14:23:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:23:34 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/292
14:23:57 <dbooth> tzviya: Not much comment, except one from DBooth.
14:24:03 <dbooth> q+
14:24:10 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:24:13 <wendyreid> scribe+
14:24:17 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:24:40 <wendyreid> dbooth: I've heard a lot of sensitivity in the past around people interpreting the list of behaviours as exhaustive and therefore if something they did wasn't there, it was fine
14:24:52 <sheila> q+
14:24:55 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:24:57 <wendyreid> ... my goal was making it clear that the list was not exhaustive, but an example of behaviours
14:25:34 <dbooth> sheila: Suggest "exmples of" instead of "some", though personally don't feel it's necessary.
14:25:51 <dbooth> +1 to sheila's suggestion
14:26:04 <tzviya> ack ra
14:26:14 <dbooth> tzviya: we're trying to be comprehensive, but ...
14:26:54 <sheila> +1
14:26:59 <dbooth> ralph: Brevity in abstracts is good.  Second sentence say it does not cover every case.  I don't thinkn "some" is necessary.
14:27:06 <Ralph> "This list of unacceptable behaviors does not cover every case. "
14:27:17 <Ralph> ^^ 3.2 Unacceptable Behavior
14:27:22 <dbooth> AGREED: Merge without adding "some"
14:27:49 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/291
14:28:05 <dbooth> Topic:  Number bullet points in the Code section #259
14:28:30 <Ralph> -> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/291/da79c51...39c72c5.html Pull 291 preview
14:28:55 <dbooth> wendy: Numbering would aid in referencing.
14:28:59 <dbooth> +1 to this change
14:29:20 <sheila> +1
14:29:26 <dbooth> tzviya: Some might be concerned that the numbers would indicate ranking.
14:29:32 <cwilso> 0
14:29:42 <dbooth> ... We could say that these are not ranked.
14:29:52 <tzviya> 0
14:30:10 <dbooth> wendy: I like it better
14:30:13 <Ralph> +1 as this makes it easier to refer to
14:30:51 <dbooth> AGREED: Add numbers -- merge the PR
14:31:27 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/290
14:31:33 <dbooth> Topic:  safety v comfort #290
14:32:00 <dbooth> wendy: Need feedback.  This section is hard to edit.
14:32:28 <dbooth> tzviya: Chris suggested "Criticim of..."   I like that.
14:32:42 <tzviya> q?
14:32:44 <dbooth> q+
14:32:50 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:32:58 <wendyreid> dbooth: I like the direction of cwilso's comment
14:33:14 <wendyreid> ... I did previously suggest something along those lines, I imagine others will read those comments
14:33:36 <cwilso> 1+
14:33:38 <cwilso> q+
14:33:46 <tzviya> ack cw
14:34:38 <dbooth> chris: When I read David's comment, unclear how "not tolerating" I liked.  That's why I put it at the end of the prev one.  More related to criticim than ranking -- less prioritized on purpose for that reason.
14:35:08 <tzviya> ack ra
14:36:01 <dbooth> ralph: We've strugged w this secion.   Chris's addition helps.  Tweak I suggest if it remains the last bullet, is to add the word "also".  Or "likewise" is okay.
14:36:12 <dbooth> q+
14:36:19 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:36:22 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:36:26 <Ralph> "We also will not tolerate ..."
14:36:50 <wendyreid> dbooth: That part doesn't work for me. Not tolerating reverse-isms doesn't make sense in what we are trying to convey here
14:37:26 <sheila> +1 to "tolerating claims of reverse-isms"
14:37:27 <cwilso> q+
14:37:28 <wendyreid> ... we won't tolerate claims of reverse-isms
14:37:34 <tzviya> ack cwilso
14:37:52 <dbooth> tzviya: Could say "we will not tolerate claims of reversisms because they do not exist"
14:38:06 <dbooth> chris: It's both>  We won't tolerate claims not reversisms.
14:38:09 <sheila> q+
14:38:12 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:38:13 <dbooth> ... Neither are ok.
14:38:43 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:38:45 <dbooth> ralph: The intro says 'we will prioritize ..." so the last bullet needs to be consistent, so I think David's onto something.
14:39:02 <tzviya> regrets+ Jen
14:39:55 <dbooth> sheila: I agree.  Makingn fun of someone's skin is not okay, but this is about about claims of reverse-isms, so that wouldn't be relevant in this section.
14:40:03 <dbooth> +1 to sheila's comment
14:40:07 <tzviya> "Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist , or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions. We will also not tolerate claims of  "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism ," and "cisphobia"."
14:40:22 <wendyreid> +1
14:40:27 <dbooth> q+
14:40:31 <sheila> q+
14:40:32 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:40:32 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:40:48 <wendyreid> dbooth: I'd like to propose the wording I proposed in the comment
14:42:07 <dbooth> dbooth; i thiink it would be good to say in the code that it's okay to critizize  sexist etc behavior
14:42:47 <sheila> q+
14:42:59 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:43:12 <dbooth> tzviya: There are too many other things that are permissible.
14:43:26 <wendyreid> sheila: I do agree with the language, but do have an issue with putting them together without some sort of connection
14:43:44 <wendyreid> ... to me that reads like we're saying they behaviours are comparable
14:43:52 <dbooth> sheila: Confusing to put these sentences together.  Sounds like we are drawing a comparisong that doesn't exist.
14:44:51 <dbooth> q+
14:45:08 <dbooth> tzviya: I like "likewise"
14:45:16 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:45:16 <dbooth> wendy: "similrly"?
14:45:20 <tzviya> ack db
14:45:47 <wendyreid> dbooth: Partly because I'm trying to scribe, I feel that this may need some more thought. I don't think it's productive to try and do it in real time
14:46:00 <wendyreid> ... I would suggest we accept this PR, then we tweak it afterwards
14:46:06 <wendyreid> ... I want us to move forward
14:46:39 <sheila> "similarly" and "claims of" are the only two changes
14:46:41 <dbooth> wendy: Suggest we change "similarly" in the PR but not merge yet.
14:47:04 <cwilso>  +1
14:47:33 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/241
14:48:06 <wendyreid> dbooth: I feel like we addressed it already, and I'm fine with closing this.
14:48:22 <wendyreid> ... I should note, I went through the meeting notes, found discussion but not decision
14:48:26 <dbooth> dbooth: I think we addressed this already and can close.
14:49:08 <dbooth> AGREED: Close
14:49:08 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22CEPC+2023%22
14:49:08 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/265
14:49:31 <dbooth> Topic;  Redundancy in the "patronizing" section #265
14:50:16 <dbooth> wendy: We could merge the first two bullets, or reword them.
14:50:33 <dbooth> q+
14:50:36 <sheila> +1 to overlap being appropriate
14:50:52 <tzviya> ack db
14:51:11 <wendyreid> dbooth: They're not entirely redundant, but there is some redundancy
14:51:19 <wendyreid> ... I did have a proposed rewording
14:51:34 <sheila> q+
14:51:53 <dbooth> wendy: I like these rewordings.
14:52:07 <wendyreid> ack sheila
14:52:35 <tzviya> q+
14:52:57 <dbooth> sheila: The suggested language here adds unnecessary caveats -- -overyly specific, eg "unusually uninformed".  IDK why it would be specifically "demographic" groups.
14:53:34 <dbooth> ... There can be overlap between items.  Okay to have some redundancy.
14:54:00 <dbooth> q+ go suggest s/demographic//
14:54:27 <dbooth> sheila: Don't see it as a necesary change.  Would rather have more reinvforcement than less.
14:54:27 <tzviya> ack me
14:55:12 <dbooth> tzviya: A few important points get tking out by this suggestion, eg "intentionally or untintenionally".  This i one of the most frequently violated sections.
14:55:12 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:55:40 <wendyreid> dbooth: Totally fine with removing the word demographic, and adding intentionally/unintentionally
14:55:43 <sheila> q+
14:56:12 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:56:18 <dbooth> tzviya: Rewording is assuming, not just implying.
14:56:58 <dbooth> sheila; What problem are you trying to resolve w this proposed change?
14:57:14 <tzviya> s/Rewording is assuming/Rewording removes assuming
14:57:16 <wendyreid> dbooth: I don't think there's harm, its just to improve the readability
14:57:27 <wendyreid> ... they are both about making assumptions about the skills of others
14:57:35 <wendyreid> ... I don't think we need two bullets on that topic
14:57:42 <wendyreid> ... one bullet is sufficient
14:57:54 <wendyreid> ... there's other aspects in the bullets, which should be kept
14:58:23 <dbooth> tzviya: There's nuance between these.
14:59:34 <sheila> I feel strongly that we should maintain the existing language, as these are nuanced and important points that warrant individual mention
15:00:24 <dbooth> tzviya: Continue this discussion next time.
15:00:44 <dbooth> I'm not wedded to my proposed verbiage.  Just try to improve the wording.
15:00:53 <dbooth> ADJOURNED
15:00:57 <wendyreid> zakim, end meeting
15:00:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been dbooth, wendyreid, tzviya, Ralph, cwilso
15:00:58 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
15:01:06 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:01:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, wendyreid; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
15:16:35 <dbooth> s/tz:/tzviya:/g
15:16:55 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:16:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
15:20:58 <dbooth> P.S. Thanks @tzviya for the tab-completion tip!   FYI, I also corrected the other abbreviations of your name using s/tz:/tzviya:/g
15:21:24 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:21:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
15:25:08 <dbooth> i/I feel like we addressed it already/Topic:  Issue 235 - proposed changes - Definition of "Microaggression" #241
15:25:32 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:25:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
15:26:59 <dbooth> s/Topic;/Topic:/
15:27:02 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:27:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
15:27:49 <dbooth> s/tking/taken/
15:29:12 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:29:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
16:36:35 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
16:49:50 <Ralph> i/AGREED: Close/[Ralph steps away to take a phone call]
16:50:50 <Ralph> s/before CoC is formally published./before CoC is formally published under the new name./
16:51:12 <Ralph> s/i also suggest to Florian/I had also suggested to Florian
16:52:05 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:52:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
16:52:57 <Ralph> present+ Sheila
16:53:28 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:53:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
17:01:40 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe