Meeting minutes
tzviya: Let's get through our pull requests and open issues
… we told the AC we would get this revision out in July
<tzviya> w3c/
tzviya: goal is "can we live with this", not the perfect code of conduct
… we've been back and forth on this PR a few times.
… [reads new revision]
dbooth: I noted a couple of problems in the PR comments
… 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
… this is more important to fix than some of the others
sheila: I thought we had resolved the language question in the last meeting
… I feel like we proposed language we all agreed on
… for the first part, not second
tzviya: Let me pull up the minutes
dbooth: I do have some new proposed wording in the PR
<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
<dbooth> dbooth: I proposed new wording in the PR, at the bottom: w3c/
sheila: I think this wording addresses the inital issue
<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."
dbooth: I have the text in the PR, we could look at that
tzviya: [reads PR version], this has maybe too much qualification
dbooth: We need to clarify safety vs comfort issues
tzviya: I worry people will exploit it if we qualify too much
dbooth: I don't agree with that approach
tzviya: We need to reword it
sheila: I'm trying to incorporate the one we discussed
sheila: [reads out revision in context], I think this language addresses the confusion without adding unneccesary qualifications
tzviya: [reads with preface]
… I think this makes sense
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to explain that the context is important to understanding the safety vs comfort issue
tzviya: we came to rough consensus
dbooth: I appreciated the context you provided in the comments
… specifically what is safety and what is comfort
… I don't want to further qualify or restrict it, but what is safety or comfort in this context
tzviya: [quotes from the Geek Feminism CoC]
… this is where we derived it from
… we've changed it from this
… we'll go forward with the version from the last meeting
sheila: One thing we did discuss was adding "similarly" to the second sentence
dbooth: I don't like the "we will not tolerate" it would be better to have a neutral tone
<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".
<cwilso> +1 Sheila
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
+1
dbooth: It would be easy to address with a rewording
tzviya: accept?
<dbooth> dbooth: Okay with accept.
tzviya: next issue #265
tzviya: Redundancy in the patronizing section
… not sure if it needs to happen in this version of the CoC
… but the one suggested change would be ok
<dbooth> dbooth: Sugggested new wording:
<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]").
<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).
tzviya: [reviews issue]
… I don't feel strongly about this
… I have heard feedback that people aren't happy about us removing "well, actually" as it's a common trigger
… no feedback on this section being too wordy
dbooth: I'd like to propose it be changed to my suggestion, but if there's not enough time, ok to move to future
tzviya: I think we have time
… people appreciate the examples
dbooth: Tried to craft the proposal to keep the same examples
sheila: No strong feelings on this
tzviya: Let's defer, until we have more feelings
dbooth: Except me! But let's focus on what is more important
tzviya: People were really surprised about "well, actually"
dbooth: I liked that example and I learned from it
… I think it needs to be in the right section
… it's a good example of trigger language
sheila: The reason it's triggering is because its patronizing
… 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
… it's an example of a place where it might be important to defer to people who have more experience of this
… a classic example of, typically gendered, patronizing language
… so I think it belongs there, and not with triggers
tzviya: Triggers are more explicit language, this fits better wit patronizing language
… I would like to put it back in
… aside from being informative, it's supportive
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.
<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.
tzviya: I think we can look at what we had before, [pastes into minutes]
dbooth: I like that!
tzviya: Let's go back to that
<dbooth> (group agrees)
tzviya: issue 263 I believe is resolved by the safety vs comfort PR
… Jeanne opened this to clarify
… second last issue is 235
… definition of microagression
… lots of back and forth on this
… last time I looked at this, I recommended with sticking with what we have since online definitions were similar
… unsure of the need for the change?
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest using wikipedia's latest version
dbooth: I'm going to drop the substantive suggestions and just focus on editorial
… basically the bottom line we just update to the latest wikipedia version
… it's an older definition, but the latest version has been worded a lot better
<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."
+1
tzviya: I don't love the word stigmatized, but can live with it otherwise
… I prefer the use of prejudiced over stigmatized
cwilso: This definition only talks about stuff directed towards stigmatized or marginalized groups, whereas before it was more broad
wendyreid: Sounds like we are ok with the beginning of the definition, but not the second half
tzviya: [shares different definition]
dbooth: Agree with Wendy's proposal
sheila: Struggling with live edits, hard to weigh the risk of changing it vs how important it is
tzviya: Change the definition to Wendy's edit
dbooth: Change particularly to especially
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.
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.
<dbooth> dbooth: Looks great!
<sheila> +1
<tzviya> +1
<dbooth> (group agrees)
tzviya: The usage of the word "improper", I put a propose closing tag on it, we don't have opposition to the phrase broadly
… we got this wording from An Qi, who suggested improper as it would be more translateable
… it's focused on correcting behaviour not punishment
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest "If You've Done Something that Caused Offense"
dbooth: I suggested "If you've done something that caused offense"
… which reflects wording in the body
… I've explained this before, I don't want people who aren't concerned with the code, it feels trivial
tzviya: I'm not sure I understand
dbooth: Who defines what is or isn't improper
tzviya: I don't think improper is a universally disliked term
dbooth: I want to address people who may not think their behaviour is wrong
<dbooth> wendy: no right term. I take translation as important. Need to consider the broadest range of English comprehension, and translation.
<dbooth> ... People causing offense probably don't give a hoot. This doc is more for people who have felt offended.
<tzviya> +1 wendyreid
<dbooth> ... Or they might heaar a hollow apology. "Causing offense" plays into that, making it a you problem not a me problem.
<cwilso> +1 Wendy
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to drop this effort.
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
dbooth: I'll drop it, I'm disappointed we didn't accept the change but thank you for considering
tzviya: I think we've covered off the main issues for this revision
… issue 232 is swallowed up by some other revisions
dbooth: Looking at it...
… some of this hasn't been addressed yet
… this is not fresh in my mind
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
dbooth: I would have to look and compare
tzviya: I'll just ask that you review and close if its addressed
dbooth: ok
ACTION: DBooth to review issue 232 and close if it is addrssed
tzviya: I believe everything else in CEPC 2023 has been addressed
… Wendy and I will work on this in the next week or so
… 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
… this is not the time to reword something you don't like
… we've been at this for a long time
… trying to predict the problems that may get caught up in AC review
… simultaneously we'll do AB/AC review
… the AB will review, then the AC review
… 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
… and a short description of the changes and why we did them
… we want to get the materials to the AB/AC in July
… we'll aim for next week
… and we'll need support from Phillippe to update things
… and once this is done, we can focus on the ombuds program!
<dbooth> Thank you all for your work on this!
tzviya: thanks all!