13:39:45 RRSAgent has joined #pwe 13:39:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/29-pwe-irc 13:39:49 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:39:50 Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG 13:42:23 date: 2024-10-29 13:42:32 chair: wendyreid 14:00:00 present+ 14:02:35 present+ 14:02:41 dbooth has joined #pwe 14:02:41 present+ 14:02:50 present+ 14:02:55 rrsagent, pointer? 14:02:55 See https://www.w3.org/2024/10/29-pwe-irc#T14-02-55 14:03:48 JenStrickland has joined #pwe 14:04:45 present+ 14:05:51 scribe+ 14:06:13 present+ 14:06:23 https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/200 14:07:29 Topic: Appeal of disciplinary sanctions 14:07:47 chris: Your github account can be connected to your w3c account. 14:08:17 wendy: The Process CG is working on this. 14:08:47 wendy: The question got raised because a disciplinary decision is also a kind of decision. 14:09:32 ... Therefore, the wording implies that an appeal of a disc action would trigger a formal objection. 14:10:06 ... We wanted the ombuds input, but the CG wants this resolved soon. 14:10:50 ... Our docs describe a variety of dsciplicine actions. 14:11:10 ... Who takes these actions, and who might be the appleal process for each? 14:12:00 ... E.g., chair first, then ombud as second line of authority. If you disagree w chair action, you appeal to the ombud. And the final is to the CEO. Who would be the appeal body for the CEO? 14:12:12 ... One suggestion is that that falls to the AB. 14:12:24 ... But what if it's an issue w the advisory board? 14:12:34 ... Do we need a different path entirely? 14:13:39 amy has joined #pwe 14:13:40 ... The FOrmal Objection council is the combination of the TAG and AB, and we look at the issue and the team writes a report. It's technically minded process. 14:13:52 .... Doesn't seem like the best for disciplinary actions. 14:13:57 q+ 14:14:16 tzviya8: This is rec to have something in place until the ombud program is in place? 14:14:42 wendy: This is for the process. More clear than it currently is, but open enough for the ombud program to fit in. 14:15:07 q+ 14:15:12 ... There's an open quetion for appeal of CEO. 14:15:15 ack dbooth 14:15:19 scribe+ 14:15:21 scribe+ 14:15:37 dbooth: What if there is no appeal for CEO decisions? It has to stop somewhere 14:15:38 Booth: what if we don't permit appeal beyond the CEO? 14:15:41 ... it has to stop somewhere 14:15:45 ... where is the limit for appeals 14:15:47 ... I propose that it stops at the CEO 14:15:51 ack JenStrickland 14:15:52 +1 to deciding where this stops 14:15:59 scribe- 14:16:49 jen: Could we do somthing that provides checks a nd balances. CEO would be like executive branch. AB woulc be likd congress. W3C legal would be like supreme court. 14:17:21 ... Would hate for it to rely on one individual. 14:17:45 ... In the AIA they badly mishandled an incident. 14:18:06 .... The person filed legal action, and that org no longer exists, because the legal was devastating. 14:18:18 sheila has joined #pwe 14:18:24 q+ 14:18:25 ... If more people were involved, it adds complexity but also multiple perspectives. 14:18:48 ... cooler heads, etc. Sheila might have thoughts. 14:18:51 ack sheila 14:19:11 q+ to support the idea that there should be multiple reporting steps including legal 14:19:28 sheila: I think there needs to be one more line of defense after the president, because the pres might be the source of the problem. 14:19:51 ... But having that many peole involved may be too hard on the complainer. 14:20:32 ... I like the idea that if there's a formal obj of the president's decision, assembling a 2-4 person mini council that deals w that, it would address not having the ombud position in place and the need for checks and balances. 14:20:37 ack amy 14:20:37 amy, you wanted to support the idea that there should be multiple reporting steps including legal 14:20:47 q+ 14:21:32 amy: Want to support a framework w multiple places of accountability. At MIT we had mandatory reports, where you had to get training, and if something came to you, you had to report it. 14:21:47 ... I think whatever frame work is set up, requirements are good. 14:22:14 .... Want to avoid havind info go up the line and it stops. Too many people can be oppressive, and puts a problem on the person reporting, 14:22:19 q+ to clarify 14:22:21 Jem has joined #pwe 14:22:25 q+ to explore sheila's suggestion 14:22:32 ... But a robust system could cause the report to stop without clear action or result. 14:22:34 present+ 14:22:36 rrsagent, make minutes 14:22:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/29-pwe-minutes.html Jem 14:22:55 +1 to clear end 14:23:00 wendy: Want to +1 suggest of maybe not stopping at the CEO, but having a clear end. 14:23:40 ... We all agree that there should be an appeals process, and we don't want any one person to have unchecked power, but also don't want the issue to go on forever. 14:24:08 ... Maybe you can appeal CEO, but once it's handled by that, there is no step after that. 14:24:13 ... Need to define the end point. 14:24:18 ack wendyreid 14:24:18 ack wendyreid 14:24:22 ack sheila 14:24:22 sheila, you wanted to clarify 14:24:24 ack sheila 14:24:32 sheila: Agree. Need to clarify the end point. 14:24:54 I wonder if the Board being both legal and "in charge" of the CEO might be the end point. they "ok" the decsion or no? 14:25:23 ack tzviya 14:25:23 tzviya, you wanted to explore sheila's suggestion 14:25:26 ... Re multiple avenues, strong advocate for that. Two separate conversations: What are avenues for complaining? Vs what are the process for appealing if there's an objection? 14:25:52 tzviya8: Agree that there should be a way to appeal the CEO decision? 14:25:53 q+ 14:26:11 ... If so, maybe 2-4 people to discuss that appeal. 14:26:42 ack dbooth 14:26:47 scribe+ 14:26:52 ... It's complicated to plan it, because this would be more sensitive than FO process, there's good reason to restrict the nubmbe 14:27:03 q+ 14:27:10 DBooth: question; in getting to the CEO, wouldn't there already be multiple people involved such as Ombudsman? 14:27:22 my understanding is that we're discussing a temporary proposal before there's an ombuds 14:27:32 Wendy: Process only mentions the CEO; it doesn't mention other steps 14:27:36 I think we need to plan for a scenario that doesn't have the ombuds — since we don't yet have them. 14:27:39 s/Agree that there should be a way to appeal the CEO decision?/We should first discuss whether we agree that it should be possible to appeal the CEO decision 14:27:41 ... our proposal is 3 levels of "responders" 14:27:52 I think one problem is that the CEO used to be an ombuds 14:27:54 ... front-line chairs, team contacts, people in meeting facilitation roles 14:28:09 ... then the Ombuds layer and people the Ombuds might pull in 14:28:15 ... the final layer is the CEO 14:28:51 ... if something happens, say in a meeting, and the chair dealt with it or took it to an Ombuds, the system we want is that every level has authority to deal with the situation 14:29:04 +1 to every level having action they can take. chair to ask someone to stop, ombuds to suspend 14:29:11 ... Ombuds have authority to take disciplinary action 14:29:29 ... expelling someone from the organization or appealing an Ombuds decision goes to the CEO 14:29:34 +1 to CEO being the decision point to either expel or hear appeal to ombuds 14:29:49 ... the only other situation I think we want to hand to the CEO is something so severe that it needs to be dealt with quickly and finally 14:30:04 ... in such situations an Ombuds should still be involved 14:30:04 +1 to there being immediate "out" factors like physical assault 14:30:25 ... I don't think we want the CEO to have to make all disciplinary actions 14:30:26 I have to jump off in a minute, so I'll just share a couple thoughts here in case we decide to proceed with the idea of a sub-committee. (1) I agree with Wendy that it should be clear that this is the last step and also temporary, until we have an ombuds program. (2) I think an odd number of people (perhaps 3) would be ideal for a subcommittee, so 14:30:26 as to avoid gridlock situations. (3) I recommend having a substitute committee member in case one of the three has a personal relationship with the person being discussed 14:30:36 q? 14:30:39 ack wendyreid 14:30:42 I'm in favor of what Wendy just stated and think it's work typing out for resolution 14:30:43 ... but we do want an appeal option for a CEO decision 14:30:57 DBooth: would something ever go directly to the CEO skipping the first two layers? 14:30:58 I think it should go through ombuds always 14:31:07 ... I'd think an Ombuds should always be involved first 14:31:14 What about while we do not have ombuds, like now? 14:31:32 Wendy: yes; other than in a severe situation as I mentioned I don't think something should go directly to the CEO 14:31:36 thanks all, take care! 14:31:50 DBooth: if there is the possibility of going directly to the CEO then I definitely think there needs to be an appeals process 14:31:59 ... else there would be a single point of failure 14:32:19 q+ 14:32:24 +1 to through ombuds as we are looking at them as the experts and neutral 14:32:25 ... if the situation has to go at least through an Ombuds first that lessens the impact of appeal stopping with the CEO 14:32:34 ack JenStrickland 14:32:38 ... but I'm not against having a 2-4 person small appeals group 14:32:41 scribe- 14:32:42 jen: Can we write down what the options are at present? 14:34:00 ack Ralph 14:34:08 scribe+ 14:34:27 Ralph: I think this discussion is going at too many levels. I suggest we think about what issues we want to solve 14:34:40 ralph: This discussion is going at too many levels. As we think of options, we should identify issues (but not solve). This gets into corporate law. This body can raise the issues. 14:34:40 ...this gets to issues of corporate law. what this body can do is raise them 14:34:45 scribe- 14:34:54 ... Eg what happens if the first decision is made by the CEO? 14:35:08 +1 to bringing in corp law experts 14:35:10 ... Then see how other orgs have solved similar scenarios. 14:35:30 wendy: Would only be making a rec 14:35:56 ralph: I don't think this body should rec that a body be responsible for appeal of CEO decision. 14:35:57 +1 to framing the issues (not suggesting solutions) 14:36:34 s/a body/a particular body/ 14:39:13 amy: Singling out one position ... should reframe that. 14:40:01 sidebar: what is our current path for raising concerns? I've been waiting for the ombuds program. 14:40:31 amy: We need a process, we need ombuds, need to bring in experts. 14:40:54 wendy: We want more than one person involved, but not too many, like FO council. 14:41:13 amy: Another top level problem: We don't have the legal expertise for how to handle this. 14:41:33 ... But we know we need to operate within the law, and not just one country 14:41:46 ralph: W3C is incorporated within the US. 14:42:10 amy: When you become a member, you agree to the Code of Conduct 14:42:26 ... US law vs other countries -- good reason to have legal advice. 14:42:52 wendy: Things we think are worth looking at? 14:43:31 ... One is to define a clear appeal role. E.g., if the CEO makes a decision it can be appealed to the Ombuds, but not beyond. That we just an example. 14:45:11 wendy: Core quetsion: what is going on w the process? it talks only about the CEO's role and nothing else. But the question that Florian gets at is that the CEO should not be the final arbiter of all decision. But the wording currently implies that. 14:45:36 ... If someone wanted to appeal a CEO decision, it would be FO council currently. I think that's what he's hoping to change. 14:46:06 q+ 14:46:31 wendy: What can we recommend? Make clear that there is a disc process to follow, which is not stated in the W3C Process? 14:46:41 ack JenStrickland 14:47:22 jen: Sticking to identifying problems, W3C does have an HR. I'm suspicious of HR people. They are W3C employees. They could weigh in. 14:47:27 q+ 14:47:45 ... W3C Legal can weigh in. Think we've outlined the problems that are priorities. 14:48:18 ... That all power doesn' end up in one person's hands, multipel people are consulted. Need to protect W3C. 14:48:29 ack tzviya 14:48:32 ... Need to have the right people in the discussion before we get to solutioning. 14:48:58 tzviya8: W3C doesn't have HR, but works the an org that does HR function -- not really a part of the org. 14:49:20 ... But we're trying to documen twhat goes in the process. Need it to be flexible. 14:49:53 ... We have a draft doc, but ombuds are not hired yet. Process language is veyr tight, but this needs to be looser, because it points to other docs. 14:50:03 ... Wantto be sure it doesn't go to the FO council. 14:50:22 +1 to recommending not going to FO council, but that other options 14:50:43 ... We don't want to outline the roles of a committee, but just say appeal can exist, and be to something other than the FO council. 14:51:13 wendy: I'll share this in the issue and w Florian. When they have langeuage we can contribute to it. 14:51:26 ack Ralph 14:53:45 https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/ 14:53:57 Topic: Request from Vision chair 14:54:26 wendy: They want review of vision, in terms of anyting that might have been missed. 14:55:07 ... Right now it's a note, but the plan is to publish as a W3C statmeent. They want to know what would block it from going to Statement. 14:55:19 ... Not editorial issues, but major things. 14:56:01 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2024OctDec/0074.html -> Tantek's mail to ac-forum "Requesting Wide Review for the Vision for W3C" 14:56:10 ... Please log issues and clarify if it is a blocker or can be dealt w later. 14:56:27 ack Ralph 14:56:42 tzviya8: Looking for consensus or just review? 14:57:17 ralph: Everybody is encouraged to review it, but are there aspects that the PWE group shold pay close attn to? 14:57:50 wendy: Read the whole thing. But re our focus: on operational principles. 14:57:55 q+ 14:58:03 ack cwilso 14:58:03 ... make sure they align w Code of Conduct, our language 14:58:30 chris: Make sure that the op principles, which were designed to capture the principle that we are collaborative and diverse. 14:58:45 ... Eg multi stakeholder, diversity. Did we capture those well enough? 14:58:57 ... We're looking for collaborative production. 14:59:37 wendy: Prob appropriate for PWE to give it a checkmark in two weeks. 14:59:59 ralph: If this group is going to register a group comment, it should be very specific about what sections it considers within its perview. 15:00:26 zakim, end meeting 15:00:26 As of this point the attendees have been cwilso, wendyreid, tzviya, dbooth, JenStrickland, Ralph, Jem, Amy 15:00:28 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 15:00:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/29-pwe-minutes.html Zakim 15:00:35 I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:00:35 ADJOURNED 15:00:36 Zakim has left #pwe