13:43:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:43:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/20-pwe-irc
13:43:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #pwe
13:45:36 <tzviya> Meeting: PWE
13:45:41 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya, Wendy
13:55:33 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
13:58:43 <dbooth> zakim, start meeting
13:58:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:58:45 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
13:58:54 <dbooth> present+
13:59:23 <tzviya> present+
13:59:39 <tzviya> regrets+ Jen_Strickland
14:02:42 <wendyreid> present+
14:04:57 <wendyreid> scribe+
14:05:09 <wendyreid> tzviya: Let's get through our pull requests and open issues
14:05:29 <wendyreid> ... we told the AC we would get this revision out in July
14:05:42 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/290
14:05:46 <wendyreid> ... goal is "can we live with this", not the perfect code of conduct
14:05:56 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
14:05:57 <wendyreid> ... we've been back and forth on this PR a few times.
14:06:22 <wendyreid> ... [reads new revision]
14:06:25 <dbooth> q+
14:06:28 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:06:47 <cwilso> present+
14:06:53 <wendyreid> dbooth: I noted a couple of problems in the PR comments
14:07:29 <wendyreid> ... it's got some problematic areas, I'm not comfortable with the phrase "we will not tolerate..." it feels out of tone with the rest of the document
14:07:37 <wendyreid> ... this is more important to fix than some of the others
14:07:50 <wendyreid> sheila: I thought we had resolved the language question in the last meeting
14:07:59 <wendyreid> ... I feel like we proposed language we all agreed on
14:08:07 <wendyreid> ... for the first part, not second
14:08:14 <wendyreid> tzviya: Let me pull up the minutes
14:08:25 <wendyreid> dbooth: I do have some new proposed wording in the PR
14:08:28 <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
14:08:47 <dbooth> dbooth: I proposed new wording in the PR, at the bottom: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/290
14:10:02 <wendyreid> sheila: I think this wording addresses the inital issue
14:10:18 <dbooth> dbooth: Suggest this wording: "If a claim of "reverse"-ism, such as "reverse racism", "reverse sexism" or "cisphobia", arises out of a participant's discomfort with efforts to correct or prevent oppressive behavior, those efforts must take priority."
14:10:25 <wendyreid> dbooth: I have the text in the PR, we could look at that
14:10:39 <wendyreid> tzviya: [reads PR version], this has maybe too much qualification
14:10:59 <wendyreid> dbooth: We need to clarify safety vs comfort issues
14:11:11 <wendyreid> tzviya: I worry people will exploit it if we qualify too much
14:11:24 <wendyreid> dbooth: I don't agree with that approach
14:11:30 <wendyreid> tzviya: We need to reword it
14:11:49 <wendyreid> sheila: I'm trying to incorporate the one we discussed
14:11:57 <dbooth> q+ to explain that the context is important to understanding the safety vs comfort issue
14:12:45 <wendyreid> sheila: [reads out revision in context], I think this language addresses the confusion without adding unneccesary qualifications
14:12:59 <wendyreid> tzviya: [reads with preface]
14:13:17 <wendyreid> ... I think this makes sense
14:13:18 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:13:19 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to explain that the context is important to understanding the safety vs comfort issue
14:13:24 <wendyreid> ... we came to rough consensus
14:13:35 <wendyreid> dbooth: I appreciated the context you provided in the comments
14:13:57 <wendyreid> ... specifically what is safety and what is comfort
14:14:30 <wendyreid> ... I don't want to further qualify or restrict it, but what is safety or comfort in this context
14:14:43 <wendyreid> tzviya: [quotes from the Geek Feminism CoC]
14:14:50 <wendyreid> ... this is where we derived it from
14:14:59 <wendyreid> ... we've changed it from this
14:15:41 <wendyreid> ... we'll go forward with the version from the last meeting
14:16:14 <wendyreid> sheila: One thing we did discuss was adding "similarly" to the second sentence
14:16:32 <wendyreid> dbooth: I don't like the "we will not tolerate" it would be better to have a neutral tone
14:16:32 <tzviya> Conclusion: Change the bullet to "Criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist , or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions. Similarly, we will also not tolerate claims of "Reverse" -isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism ," and "cisphobia".
14:16:51 <cwilso> +1 Sheila
14:16:54 <wendyreid> sheila: I don't think it sounds angry, it's more of a factual statement, it's an example of something we're not ok with
14:16:58 <wendyreid> +1
14:17:28 <wendyreid> dbooth: It would be easy to address with a rewording
14:17:31 <wendyreid> tzviya: accept?
14:18:09 <dbooth> dbooth: Okay with accept.
14:18:11 <wendyreid> ... next issue #265
14:18:30 <dbooth> q+
14:18:47 <wendyreid> tzviya: Redundancy in the patronizing section
14:19:00 <wendyreid> ... not sure if it needs to happen in this version of the CoC
14:19:12 <wendyreid> ... but the one suggested change would be ok
14:19:21 <dbooth> dbooth: Sugggested new wording:
14:19:22 <dbooth> [[
14:19:24 <dbooth>     Intentionally or unintentionally implying that the audience is uninformed (e.g. making statements like "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]").
14:19:24 <dbooth>     Assuming that certain groups are unskilled (e.g., “So easy your grandmother could do it”, which implies an older woman would not be technically competent).
14:19:25 <dbooth> ]]
14:20:10 <wendyreid> tzviya: [reviews issue]
14:20:30 <wendyreid> ... I don't feel strongly about this
14:20:53 <wendyreid> ... I have heard feedback that people aren't happy about us removing "well, actually" as it's a common trigger
14:21:11 <wendyreid> ... no feedback on this section being too wordy
14:21:19 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:21:39 <wendyreid> dbooth: I'd like to propose it be changed to my suggestion, but if there's not enough time, ok to move to future
14:21:55 <wendyreid> tzviya: I think we have time
14:21:58 <wendyreid> ... people appreciate the examples
14:22:19 <wendyreid> dbooth: Tried to craft the proposal to keep the same examples
14:22:37 <wendyreid> sheila: No strong feelings on this
14:22:56 <wendyreid> tzviya: Let's defer, until we have more feelings
14:23:08 <wendyreid> dbooth: Except me! But let's focus on what is more important
14:23:12 <dbooth> q+
14:23:16 <tzviya> ack db
14:23:19 <wendyreid> tzviya: People were really surprised about "well, actually"
14:23:29 <wendyreid> dbooth: I liked that example and I learned from it
14:23:36 <wendyreid> ... I think it needs to be in the right section
14:23:43 <wendyreid> ... it's a good example of trigger language
14:23:55 <wendyreid> sheila: The reason it's triggering is because its patronizing
14:24:20 <wendyreid> ... I find it difficult to hear that you just learned it, and want to move it. It's a really important issue that comes up a lot
14:24:41 <wendyreid> ... it's an example of a place where it might be important to defer to people who have more experience of this
14:24:58 <wendyreid> ... a classic example of, typically gendered, patronizing language
14:25:11 <wendyreid> ... so I think it belongs there, and not with triggers
14:25:18 <dbooth> q+
14:25:35 <wendyreid> tzviya: Triggers are more explicit language, this fits better wit patronizing language
14:25:41 <wendyreid> ... I would like to put it back in
14:25:46 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:25:49 <wendyreid> ... aside from being informative, it's supportive
14:26:30 <wendyreid> dbooth: I agree with Sheila, as Wendy pointed out many times patronizing language doesn't include that phrase, but it's helpful as an example.
14:26:41 <tzviya> Be aware that, regardless of the speaker's intentions, some phrases or constructions lead people to expect a patronizing statement to follow, and avoid such phrases. For example, beginning an interjection with "Well, actually..." can set this expectation and be taken as a sign of disrespect.
14:26:54 <wendyreid> tzviya: I think we can look at what we had before, [pastes into minutes]
14:27:06 <wendyreid> dbooth: I like that!
14:27:11 <wendyreid> tzviya: Let's go back to that
14:27:32 <dbooth> (group agrees)
14:27:46 <wendyreid> ... issue 263 I believe is resolved by the safety vs comfort PR
14:28:00 <wendyreid> ... Jeanne opened this to clarify
14:28:20 <wendyreid> ... second last issue is 235
14:28:33 <wendyreid> ... definition of microagression
14:28:42 <wendyreid> ... lots of back and forth on this
14:29:08 <wendyreid> ... last time I looked at this, I recommended with sticking with what we have since online definitions were similar
14:29:17 <wendyreid> ... unsure of the need for the change?
14:29:18 <dbooth> q+ to suggest using wikipedia's latest version
14:29:39 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:29:39 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest using wikipedia's latest version
14:29:54 <wendyreid> dbooth: I'm going to drop the substantive suggestions and just focus on editorial
14:30:06 <wendyreid> ... basically the bottom line we just update to the latest wikipedia version
14:30:23 <wendyreid> ... it's an older definition, but the latest version has been worded a lot better
14:30:34 <dbooth> suggested wording: "Microaggression refers to commonplace verbal, behavioral or environmental slights, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups."
14:30:55 <wendyreid> +1
14:31:57 <cwilso> q+
14:31:59 <wendyreid> tzviya: I don't love the word stigmatized, but can live with it otherwise
14:32:07 <tzviya> ack cwilso
14:32:13 <wendyreid> ... I prefer the use of prejudiced over stigmatized
14:32:49 <wendyreid> cwilso: This definition only talks about stuff directed towards stigmatized or marginalized groups, whereas before it was more broad
14:33:52 <tzviya> https://www.med.unc.edu/healthsciences/about-us/diversity/jeditoolkit/microaggressions-microaffirmations/
14:34:09 <wendyreid> wendyreid: Sounds like we are ok with the beginning of the definition, but not the second half
14:34:24 <wendyreid> tzviya: [shares different definition]
14:36:17 <wendyreid> dbooth: Agree with Wendy's proposal
14:36:41 <wendyreid> sheila: Struggling with live edits, hard to weigh the risk of changing it vs how important it is
14:36:59 <wendyreid> tzviya: Change the definition to Wendy's edit
14:37:06 <wendyreid> dbooth: Change particularly to especially
14:38:09 <wendyreid> Proposed: Microaggression refers to commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, especially culturally marginalized groups.
14:38:40 <wendyreid> Proposed: Microaggression refers to commonplace verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, especially culturally marginalized groups.
14:38:55 <dbooth> dbooth: Looks great!
14:38:58 <sheila> +1
14:39:02 <tzviya> +1
14:39:37 <dbooth> (group agrees)
14:40:35 <wendyreid> tzviya: The usage of the word "improper", I put a propose closing tag on it, we don't have opposition to the phrase broadly
14:40:59 <wendyreid> ... we got this wording from An Qi, who suggested improper as it would be more translateable
14:41:05 <dbooth> q+ to suggest "If You've Done Something that Caused Offense"
14:41:35 <wendyreid> ... it's focused on correcting behaviour not punishment
14:41:40 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:41:40 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest "If You've Done Something that Caused Offense"
14:42:04 <wendyreid> dbooth: I suggested "If you've done something that caused offense"
14:42:24 <wendyreid> ... which reflects wording in the body
14:43:06 <wendyreid> ... I've explained this before, I don't want people who aren't concerned with the code, it feels trivial
14:43:14 <wendyreid> tzviya: I'm not sure I understand
14:43:28 <wendyreid> dbooth: Who defines what is or isn't improper
14:43:30 <wendyreid> q+
14:43:54 <wendyreid> tzviya: I don't think improper is a universally disliked term
14:44:00 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:44:20 <wendyreid> dbooth: I want to address people who may not think their behaviour is wrong
14:44:58 <dbooth> wendy: no right term.  I take translation as important.  Need to consider the broadest range of English comprehension, and translation.
14:45:29 <dbooth> ... People causing offense probably don't give a hoot.  This doc is more for people who have felt offended.
14:45:57 <tzviya> +1 wendyreid
14:46:00 <dbooth> ... Or they might heaar a hollow apology.   "Causing offense" plays into that, making it a you problem not a me problem.
14:46:08 <cwilso> +1 Wendy
14:47:05 <dbooth> q+ to drop this effort.
14:47:44 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:47:44 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to drop this effort.
14:48:00 <wendyreid> tzviya: Text in the paragraphs is carefully worded, the onus is on the person, but I'm not too concerned about the wording, but the wording needs to reflect the action
14:48:30 <wendyreid> dbooth: I'll drop it, I'm disappointed we didn't accept the change but thank you for considering
14:48:58 <wendyreid> tzviya: I think we've covered off the main issues for this revision
14:49:26 <wendyreid> ... issue 232 is swallowed up by some other revisions
14:49:35 <wendyreid> dbooth: Looking at it...
14:49:43 <wendyreid> ... some of this hasn't been addressed yet
14:49:57 <wendyreid> ... this is not fresh in my mind
14:50:30 <wendyreid> tzviya: We've had quite a few discussions about the bullets, I suspect the issue can be closed because we addressed each of the bullets individually
14:50:39 <wendyreid> dbooth: I would have to look and compare
14:50:52 <wendyreid> tzviya: I'll just ask that you review and close if its addressed
14:50:57 <wendyreid> dbooth: ok
14:51:12 <dbooth> ACTION: DBooth to review issue 232 and close if it is addrssed
14:51:19 <wendyreid> tzviya: I believe everything else in CEPC 2023 has been addressed
14:51:34 <wendyreid> ... Wendy and I will work on this in the next week or so
14:52:17 <wendyreid> ... what we did last time was a review within PWE, urgent issues like typos, or language that is really problematic for publishing at this stage
14:52:28 <wendyreid> ... this is not the time to reword something you don't like
14:52:33 <wendyreid> ... we've been at this for a long time
14:52:51 <wendyreid> ... trying to predict the problems that may get caught up in AC review
14:53:11 <wendyreid> ... simultaneously we'll do AB/AC review
14:53:26 <wendyreid> ... the AB will review, then the AC review
14:53:44 <wendyreid> ... the AC review last time was a bit painful, but this is not a new CoC, and we'll need to prepare a change log
14:54:00 <wendyreid> ... and a short description of the changes and why we did them
14:54:11 <wendyreid> ... we want to get the materials to the AB/AC in July
14:54:21 <wendyreid> ... we'll aim for next week
14:54:37 <wendyreid> ... and we'll need support from Phillippe to update things
14:54:39 <tzviya> q?
14:55:06 <wendyreid> ... and once this is done, we can focus on the ombuds program!
14:56:01 <dbooth> Thank you all for your work on this!
14:56:02 <wendyreid> ... thanks all!
14:56:17 <tzviya> rrsagent, make minures
14:56:17 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minures', tzviya.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:56:23 <tzviya> rrsagent, make minutes
14:56:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/20-pwe-minutes.html tzviya
15:27:52 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
15:50:33 <naomi> naomi has joined #pwe
17:02:03 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe