14:00:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
14:00:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/09/17-pwe-irc
14:00:42 <cwilso> Zakim, this is PWE
14:00:42 <Zakim> got it, cwilso
14:00:42 <cwilso> present+
14:01:45 <Ralph> present+
14:01:59 <amy> amy has joined #pwe
14:02:02 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:02:13 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
14:02:17 <Ralph> zakim, start meeting
14:02:17 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:02:18 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
14:02:41 <Ralph> present+ Amy, Booth, WendyReid, Jemma, Tzviya, Ralph
14:03:06 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
14:03:11 <JenStrickland> present+
14:03:57 <wendyreid> present+
14:04:43 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
14:04:46 <Ralph> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2024Sep/0001.html
14:05:06 <Ralph> present+ Sheila
14:05:29 <dbooth> present+
14:06:04 <wendyreid> +1 to giving Tzviya more authority :)
14:06:38 <tzviya8> q?
14:07:06 <Jem> Jem has joined #pwe
14:07:22 <JenStrickland> scribe+
14:07:24 <Jem> present+ JemmaJauenKu
14:07:37 <tzviya8> ack Ralph
14:08:22 <wendyreid> q+
14:08:38 <Jem> Would it be beneficial to summarize what we have accomplished/discussed as a group?
14:08:43 <JenStrickland> Ralph: I know this group has discussed training for a variety of folks, and development of resources.
14:08:48 <tzviya8> q+
14:08:51 <tzviya8> ack wendyreid
14:08:56 <wendyreid> https://idrc.ocadu.ca/projects/all-standards-with-us/
14:08:58 <JenStrickland> Ralph: Might there be resources to continue that?
14:09:49 <Ralph> -> https://idrc.ocadu.ca Inclusive Design Research Centre
14:09:59 <JenStrickland> Wendy: I had a meeting last week with folks at the link above, and they're doing a project called "All Standards" with us. It's researching the processes for getting people with disabilities involved, the barriers getting into standards. They're conducting interviews with a variety of standards orgs.
14:10:59 <JenStrickland> Wendy: They asked if I would be willing to review, and I said I'd love it. Anything they find should be hugely beneficial to our work. They asked if we did any training, and I pointed to the running better meetings training. Which I think was successful but didn't get the reach we hoped for.
14:11:24 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/events/happenings/2023/meeting-facilitation-training/ Running Better Meetings
14:11:35 <tzviya8> ack me
14:11:51 <JenStrickland> Wendy: We have other training we'd like to do for members, chairs, etc. We rely on the establishment of the ombuds program.
14:12:19 <JenStrickland> Tzviya: I know the center for democracy and technology is looking for info on inclusiveness.
14:12:38 <JenStrickland> Tzviya: I'm attending my first call tomorrow.
14:13:29 <JenStrickland> Tzviya: the default now is to give people a ton of info and have them figure it out.
14:13:41 <JenStrickland> tzviya8: There's a lot more we can do.
14:13:48 <tzviya8> q?
14:14:33 <JenStrickland> … Wendy do you want to talk a bit about what you and Max have worked on with AC facilitation?
14:15:27 <JenStrickland> wendyreid: Yes, we're call it AC facilitators, there'll be an email soon, the goal is to facilitate conversation, improve tone and usability of the lists. I sent a summary of the votes in progress and got some pretty good feedback.
14:15:56 <amy> q+ re: metrics
14:16:03 <JenStrickland> … we want to make sure the conversation is productive and positive. We get a lot of ideas but nothing happens, so we want to try to take it to an appropriate destination.
14:17:53 <dbooth> +1 to metrics idea!
14:18:34 <sheila> q+
14:18:47 <tzviya8> ack am
14:18:47 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to discuss metrics
14:18:55 <tzviya8> ack sheila
14:18:57 <wendyreid> q+
14:19:05 <dbooth> Could also measure talking time
14:19:54 <JenStrickland> Amy: Raised a question about how to address some voices predominating conversations and new voices are frequently met with negativity. Wondered if there is a way to use metrics to support the conversation.
14:20:41 <tzviya8> +1 to sheila
14:20:49 <JenStrickland> sheila The amount of time a person is speaking may not be the measure, it may not be that we only hear from the same people, but sometimes the nature of conversation is alienating.
14:20:53 <dbooth> I'm fantasizing about each listener rating the helpfulness of each contribution
14:20:58 <JenStrickland> … I don't know if that's the exact solution.
14:21:04 <tzviya8> ack wendyreid
14:21:07 <JenStrickland> q+
14:22:11 <JenStrickland> wendyreid I agree with what Sheila said, there's likely a balance, where someone is contributing a lot, but they're doing so in a constructive manner vs someone who talks a lot but is not constructive. It's something we're concerned about and watching. We may collect metrics and see if they can validate our feelings.
14:22:23 <Jem> as the AC, I am very confused about so many on going topics. I think the positive part of Amy's suggestion is let other participants like me, who is very quite-  know who were  not part of
14:22:36 <JenStrickland> … there's definitely some nuance to it, but figuring out how to do it effectively.
14:22:48 <tzviya8> ack JenStrickland
14:22:55 <Jem> the core discussion.
14:22:56 <dbooth> Compute the ratio of the value contributed by the total talk time.  ;)
14:23:03 <wendyreid> scribe+
14:23:18 <Jem> q+
14:23:28 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: As someone with experience participating in a group where I got questioned but had facts to back it up, I felt bullied
14:23:52 <wendyreid> ... they dismissed it, told me to write a ticket, but writing a ticket creates an opportunity to be dogpiled
14:24:41 <wendyreid> ... there's a tendency for people to push people around in this way. There needs to be a compassionate way to handle this behaviour, the pushiness.
14:25:10 <wendyreid> ... there needs to be some way to condition contributors to recognize different ways to communicate, to participate
14:25:44 <wendyreid> ... maybe some kind of training, or mentorship from seasoned members who participate productively
14:26:24 <tzviya8> q?
14:26:33 <tzviya8> ack jem
14:27:35 <cwilso> +1 jem
14:28:25 <tzviya8> +1 to reflecting on what we've accomplished/not accomplished
14:29:20 <JenStrickland> Jem First, congratulations to Tzviya on her new position. Then, I was thinking about what we have accomplished as a PWE. We've been doing diversity awards, and then we couldn't accomplish the ombuds program. That kind of discussion will be helpful. I don't think that metrics are as relevant, and am not sure it's about how much people talk, need
14:29:20 <JenStrickland> some kind of institutional knowledge to understand a point to be more active in the discussion. Jen, you mentioned AGWG, that culture is really tough, culture, moderation, those variances. Hearing those comments maybe we can help those working groups.
14:29:24 <tzviya8> q?
14:29:29 <tzviya8> ack amy
14:29:29 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask Jem about her participation in ac-forum (or other lists)
14:29:43 <dbooth> I also like Jemma's suggestion of focusing on the WGs that are the most problematic
14:30:25 <JenStrickland> Amy I wanted to ask if you've posted in the AC forum, and what you've seen in the characteristics of messages you've been tempted to reply on or not. I'm curious to know what the differences are.
14:31:08 <cwilso> q?
14:31:13 <JenStrickland> Jem Good question. If many people are participating, then I presume it must be an important question, so I feel I should. However, I may not have the important context which can be difficult to rebuild from the emails.
14:31:39 <JenStrickland> Amy I'm sure there are things that you can bring to the conversation, where you don't have to be an authority.
14:31:53 <JenStrickland> JemI can see the logic, but there's so much for me to hash out all the points.
14:32:01 <cwilso> q+
14:32:18 <cwilso> q-
14:32:35 <JenStrickland> tzviya8 Let's take a minute or ten to think on what PWE has accomplished or what we've had trouble moving forward with.
14:34:14 <JenStrickland> cwilso Jemma said one thing that I think is really important: we haven't been able to get the ombuds program running. One challenge is that any forum can become toxic, and I try to call out those who keep their cool and do a good job to steer the conversation to be productive, steer their energy into being inclusive and listening to other people.
14:34:14 <JenStrickland> I'm not sure how to best do that, but it doesn't seem like as a culture we have it engrained to do that.
14:34:17 <JenStrickland> q+
14:35:48 <JenStrickland> … Brandon Jones in the immersive web space, will respond in a welcoming fashion to criticism, structuring conversations to make them positive. I'm not sure how we move forward. The CoC is a great place. I'm not always the most inclusive / welcoming, and there are people I trust to call me in.
14:36:12 <tzviya8> ack JenStrickland
14:36:12 <JenStrickland> tzviya8 I see Jen on the queue, and I think the best way to do this is to lead by example.
14:36:58 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: I often think about the difference in meetings I attend that's lead by positive leaders versus not.
14:37:34 <wendyreid> ... I'm thinking of how important it is to get the ombuds underway is that chairs need support, addressing when people are not following the code of conduct
14:37:34 <amy> +1 to positive leaders
14:37:54 <wendyreid> ... asking for change and not seeing it leads to me not bothering to report anything
14:38:07 <wendyreid> ... what do we need to do to make ombuds happen?
14:39:01 <dbooth> q+ to say I like Chris's idea of putting more emphasis on helping chairs and other leaders to promoting inclusion.   Most of the Code of Conduct is negative -- don't do a, b, c, d, e, etc. -- but would be really nice to have more positive-oriented effort, like mentoring
14:39:42 <JenStrickland> tzviya8 What I'm hearing is we need leadership to model this behavior, calling in, demonstrating inclusiveness. That's a tall order, not every chair can do this. AGWG is an enormous group and there are challenging personalities. ARIA changed culture. Ombuds can help but they can't fix things. We still need strong leadership.
14:39:48 <amy> I will note that i've noticed Wendy's gentle but consistent replying has seemed to allow others I don't hear from as much to reply to her (maybe that feels "safer"? these kind, mediating messages can be a safe place for ppl to enter a conversation
14:40:10 <amy> +1 to leadership skills and positions. i wonder what if anything for eg: the Chairs guidebook might be changed for this
14:40:12 <JenStrickland> … We have a great CoC, but we need to figure out how to improve the leadership skills of those in leadership positions.
14:40:20 <tzviya8> ack dbooth
14:40:20 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I like Chris's idea of putting more emphasis on helping chairs and other leaders to promoting inclusion.   Most of the Code of Conduct is negative --
14:40:23 <Zakim> ... don't do a, b, c, d, e, etc. -- but would be really nice to have more positive-oriented effort, like mentoring
14:41:11 <tzviya8> ack Ralph
14:41:28 <JenStrickland> dbooth I really like the idea of positive effort, maybe mentoring to guide chairs and other leaders toward a more inclusive kind of way of running groups. I think it could be helpful to reword the CoC to be positive, helping language instead of "Do not" type wording.
14:41:50 <dbooth> +1 to rewarding good behavior!!!
14:42:08 <JenStrickland> Ralph Can we come up with ways of rewarding good behavior, cleverly? Not just having the ombuds to address things.
14:42:24 <amy> +1 re: commending good behavior
14:42:37 <amy> q+ to talk about praise
14:42:47 <JenStrickland> tzviya8 I think we can do that, commend positive behavior out loud more often.
14:42:55 <JenStrickland> cwilso Agree with that point.
14:43:04 <tzviya8> ack amy
14:43:04 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to talk about praise
14:43:19 <JenStrickland> Ralph So, how do we teach people to identify those people who don't get the hint that that was a really positive thing.
14:43:29 <dbooth> q+ to suggest requiring a minimal ongoing chair training
14:44:06 <tzviya8> q+ to recommend thanking
14:44:27 <Jem> Maybe this is a good segway to Wendy's training discussion in a more structured way?
14:44:36 <JenStrickland> Amy I think in general people don't get enough praise, and it's really worth doing. I think taking that time is really good. I wanted to call out Wendy for doing a really good thing to have people come to her, which is really good and humanizes us.
14:45:25 <Jem> compliment is the basic principle of evaluation. you start with positives and compliments...
14:45:26 <tzviya8> ack dbooth
14:45:26 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest requiring a minimal ongoing chair training
14:45:27 <JenStrickland> Amy For a while I did a gratitude journal, which sounds so hippie-dippie thing but it was really powerful.
14:45:36 <dbooth> Ongoing chair training might consist mostly of reviewing recente examples of great chairing
14:45:48 <JenStrickland> dbooth What about an ongoing chairs training, and have it be mostly reviewing examples of great chairing?
14:45:48 <amy> +1 to working w/ chairs
14:45:50 <JenStrickland> q+
14:45:58 <wendyreid> ack tzviya8
14:46:03 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
14:46:03 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to recommend thanking
14:46:08 <tzviya8> ack me
14:46:14 <Jem> q+
14:46:56 <JenStrickland> tzviya8 Training is more complicated with coordination, but worth coming back to. David Singer told me he's been focused on thanking people more consciously. He doesn't want to end his career without thanking people. It's contagious.
14:46:56 <dbooth> Very nice comment about David Singer thanking people!
14:47:00 <tzviya8> ack JenStrickland
14:47:09 <sheila> q+
14:47:35 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: Regarding training the chairs, I'm thinking of chairs I've interacted with
14:48:00 <wendyreid> ... chairs have so much work going on chairing their groups, adding something to their schedule may not work
14:48:14 <wendyreid> ... maybe we send them emails with commendations they've received
14:48:28 <wendyreid> ... or get people to send in examples of great contributions
14:48:34 <dbooth> +1 to the idea of email recognition of positive chairing example
14:48:50 <wendyreid> ... I often send emails to individuals to let them know, but putting it out there to create positive contagion
14:48:59 <amy> +1 to acknowledgements. we've been discussing this internally as part of how we show value for W3C and how we make sure employers see positive feedback
14:49:19 <Ralph> [survey question: "Think about the best chairs of groups in which you've participated.  What characteristics of those individuals made them good chairs for that group?"]
14:49:22 <JenStrickland> Jem I have a high level question re Tzviya mentioned training. We've mentioned training a lot. What is the hold up for training.
14:49:58 <JenStrickland> wendyreid The hardest part is getting people to participate. The work to prepare it, there's some lift. We don't have any way to compel people. I sent lots of reminders, accommodate time zones.
14:50:12 <JenStrickland> From JenStrickland - can we give the training at TPAC?
14:50:23 <dbooth> q+ to disagree that we cannot compel chair.  I think W3C can place requirements on them as condition of chairing.
14:50:31 <wendyreid> ack Jem
14:50:36 <JenStrickland> wendyreid Chairs have a lot of work, but this isn't like compliance training at work, there's no compulsion.
14:51:07 <JenStrickland> Jem We could do some campaign on the training. We could highlight the training recordings, and then require it for the chairs.
14:51:30 <amy> I think Jem's idea of linking training w/ Chair position is good. I wonder if looking at the Chair guidebook with training or encouraging positive behaviors in mind
14:51:33 <wendyreid> ack sheila
14:51:33 <JenStrickland> … you have to take this training to act as a chair. Campaign and training requirement.
14:51:46 <wendyreid> q+ sheila
14:51:51 <JenStrickland> sheila Before the end of this conversation, I have a professional update.
14:51:52 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:51:52 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to disagree that we cannot compel chair.  I think W3C can place requirements on them as condition of chairing.
14:52:36 <wendyreid> ack Ralph
14:52:36 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on requirements to be named as a Group Chair
14:52:36 <JenStrickland> dbooth I would disagree with the assertion we can't require, as we require compliance with the COC and the patent policy. I also want to address that chairs don't have time for this, but this is important and people can make time for things that are important.
14:52:43 <sheila> I agree, it could be a requirement for being a chair
14:53:13 <amy> I find a page from maybe 2014? https://www.w3.org/wiki/Guide/HumanDimension
14:54:14 <JenStrickland> Ralph Concur with David and Jemma. All of these trainings are recorded. We can require that chairs assert they have taken these trainings. I think we'll soon be doing that for our anti-trust and competition policy. But, my question to the rest of you, asserting that we can require it, do you think this would be a good thing to do? Would it limit
14:54:14 <JenStrickland> people who are good chairs, would it fail to eliminate people who took the training and didn't understand it?
14:54:22 <JenStrickland> … what are the graduation requirements?
14:54:37 <JenStrickland> wendyreid You'll receive an assessment six months from the training date…
14:54:45 <sheila> the training would have to be effective enough to make it worth their time. we'd have to put real effort into the training development
14:54:46 <JenStrickland> Ralph that's a good idea.
14:55:16 <amy> It's interesting to consider if we were trying to set up Groups and Chairs now, that this kind of requirements wouldn't make us blink
14:55:47 <JenStrickland> wendyreid Half joking, having it as required would probably increase the … when I became a chair I didn't feel prepared, here's a guide but it's very hard to get through. I learned most of what I did from co-chairs. I think about this re COC, related to process.
14:56:03 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland Yeah, without tzviya8 I wouldn't be able to chair the Equity CG.
14:56:19 <dbooth> q+ to suggest a (perhaps automated) periodic survey of group participants about the good points of the chair and suggested improvement
14:56:58 <dbooth> Thank you Sheila for your wonderful contributions!
14:58:10 <wendyreid> ack sheila
14:58:14 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:58:14 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest a (perhaps automated) periodic survey of group participants about the good points of the chair and suggested improvement
14:59:33 <Jem> +1 to David's suggestion
14:59:56 <Jem> survey is a good feedback mechanism.
15:00:51 <dbooth> Thank you all for everything I learn from you!
15:01:18 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
15:01:18 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been cwilso, Ralph, Amy, Booth, WendyReid, Jemma, Tzviya, JenStrickland, Sheila, dbooth, JemmaJauenKu
15:01:20 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:01:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/17-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:29 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
15:01:49 <Ralph> chair: Tzviya, Wendy
15:02:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/17-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
15:02:58 <Ralph> I/+1 to giving Tzviya/topic: What's next for this group?
15:03:12 <Ralph> i/+1 to giving Tzviya/topic: What's next for this group?
15:03:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/17-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
15:03:57 <Ralph> i/+1 to giving Tzviya more/topic: What's next for this group?
15:04:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/09/17-pwe-minutes.html Ralph