Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2023-05-23
About the group
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.
<sheila> appreciate this sentiment, thanks
Ombud proposal
tzviya: I sent the budget to the finance committee.
… We set up interview doc. heila and Judy Brewer put together the interview process -- selection of W3C people and Team. Need to decide who.
… Suggest Sheila work on that.
… Ralph, team suggestions? Perhaps someone from the board?
ralph: We'lll have to talk.
tzviya: Need to put out the call for interviews -- 4 ombuds, one from each region. Want both qualifications and diversity.
<sheila> happy to help
tzviya: Board peronnel committee is busy working on CEO selection.
<Ralph> previous 25 April
CoC schedule and planning
wendy: We added a section to the doc that outlines our yearly revision process.
… From March onward we enter a reviion cycle.
… Goal is by the end of June to have everything in a good state to send for review by AB and AC.
… Goal this year is to get that in by July so that a new version w be ready by TPAC.
… 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.
… Mid-june w trigger review within the group too.
tzviya: Last time we did this it was a total rewrite, and a heavy lift for the AB to review.
… This time I think they're watching more.
… We'll ee what the AC says. Didn't get much comment from them last time.
… Depending on Process 2023 we may or may not need Director approval.
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?
… How many weeks after this group's approval?
… Previsouly there was confusion and debate about what was needed.
tzviya: i'll check. We can ask the AB to start reviewing it now.
<Zakim> sheila, you wanted to discuss quick clarifying question
sheila: Florian asked me: Thy're updating the Prcess doc. Would it be appropriate to change it to CoC preemptively?
… I think i'ts harmless to do.
+1 to preemptively changing
wendy: Fine to me.
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.
sheila: The link would still work.
<Ralph> 11. Process Evolution
ralph: I concur w CHris, there's no particular duration of AB review required, but the AB formally owns this doc, so it's uup to them to decide hoow long they want to review it.
… .on naming, I strongly discourage asking the AB to change the reference in Process before CoC is formally published under the new name.
… Important for our constitution to be self-consistent.
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on naming
<sheila> makes sense, thanks
ralph: I had also suggested to Florian that an editorial note could be added indicating that the name may change.
tzviya: AC gets 28 days to review
wendy: If we can go tto AB mid july and AC beginning of Aug. Or more like beginning of July for AB.
<tzviya> https://
Editing the Abstract PR 292
<tzviya> w3c/
tzviya: Not much comment, except one from DBooth.
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
… my goal was making it clear that the list was not exhaustive, but an example of behaviours
sheila: Suggest "exmples of" instead of "some", though personally don't feel it's necessary.
+1 to sheila's suggestion
tzviya: we're trying to be comprehensive, but ...
<sheila> +1
ralph: Brevity in abstracts is good. Second sentence say it does not cover every case. I don't thinkn "some" is necessary.
<Ralph> "This list of unacceptable behaviors does not cover every case. "
<Ralph> ^^ 3.2 Unacceptable Behavior
AGREED: Merge without adding "some"
Number bullet points in the Code section #259
<Ralph> Pull 291 preview
wendy: Numbering would aid in referencing.
+1 to this change
<sheila> +1
tzviya: Some might be concerned that the numbers would indicate ranking.
<cwilso> 0
tzviya: We could say that these are not ranked.
<tzviya> 0
wendy: I like it better
<Ralph> +1 as this makes it easier to refer to
AGREED: Add numbers -- merge the PR
safety v comfort #290
wendy: Need feedback. This section is hard to edit.
tzviya: Chris suggested "Criticim of..." I like that.
dbooth: I like the direction of cwilso's comment
… I did previously suggest something along those lines, I imagine others will read those comments
<cwilso> 1+
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.
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.
<Ralph> "We also will not tolerate ..."
dbooth: That part doesn't work for me. Not tolerating reverse-isms doesn't make sense in what we are trying to convey here
<sheila> +1 to "tolerating claims of reverse-isms"
dbooth: we won't tolerate claims of reverse-isms
tzviya: Could say "we will not tolerate claims of reversisms because they do not exist"
chris: It's both> We won't tolerate claims not reversisms.
… Neither are ok.
ralph: The intro says 'we will prioritize ..." so the last bullet needs to be consistent, so I think David's onto something.
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.
+1 to sheila's comment
<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"."
+1
dbooth: I'd like to propose the wording I proposed in the comment
dbooth; i thiink it would be good to say in the code that it's okay to critizize sexist etc behavior
tzviya: There are too many other things that are permissible.
sheila: I do agree with the language, but do have an issue with putting them together without some sort of connection
… to me that reads like we're saying they behaviours are comparable
sheila: Confusing to put these sentences together. Sounds like we are drawing a comparisong that doesn't exist.
tzviya: I like "likewise"
wendy: "similrly"?
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
… I would suggest we accept this PR, then we tweak it afterwards
… I want us to move forward
<sheila> "similarly" and "claims of" are the only two changes
wendy: Suggest we change "similarly" in the PR but not merge yet.
<cwilso> +1
Issue 235 - proposed changes - Definition of "Microaggression" #241
dbooth: I feel like we addressed it already, and I'm fine with closing this.
… I should note, I went through the meeting notes, found discussion but not decision
dbooth: I think we addressed this already and can close.
<Ralph> [Ralph steps away to take a phone call]
AGREED: Close
<tzviya> https://
Redundancy in the "patronizing" section #265
wendy: We could merge the first two bullets, or reword them.
<sheila> +1 to overlap being appropriate
dbooth: They're not entirely redundant, but there is some redundancy
… I did have a proposed rewording
wendy: I like these rewordings.
sheila: The suggested language here adds unnecessary caveats -- -overyly specific, eg "unusually uninformed". IDK why it would be specifically "demographic" groups.
… There can be overlap between items. Okay to have some redundancy.
sheila: Don't see it as a necesary change. Would rather have more reinvforcement than less.
tzviya: A few important points get taken out by this suggestion, eg "intentionally or untintenionally". This i one of the most frequently violated sections.
dbooth: Totally fine with removing the word demographic, and adding intentionally/unintentionally
tzviya: Rewording removes assuming, not just implying.
sheila; What problem are you trying to resolve w this proposed change?
dbooth: I don't think there's harm, its just to improve the readability
… they are both about making assumptions about the skills of others
… I don't think we need two bullets on that topic
… one bullet is sufficient
… there's other aspects in the bullets, which should be kept
tzviya: There's nuance between these.
<sheila> I feel strongly that we should maintain the existing language, as these are nuanced and important points that warrant individual mention
tzviya: Continue this discussion next time.
I'm not wedded to my proposed verbiage. Just try to improve the wording.
ADJOURNED
P.S. Thanks @tzviya for the tab-completion tip! FYI, I also corrected the other abbreviations of your name using s/tz:/tzviya:/g