14:26:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
14:26:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/26-pwe-irc
14:37:24 <tzviya8> Meeting: PWE
14:37:34 <tzviya8> Date: 2024-11-26
14:37:41 <tzviya8> Chair: Tzviya, Wendy
14:38:13 <tzviya8> agenda+ Review for Vision
14:38:25 <tzviya8> agenda+ Funding IEs
14:38:44 <tzviya8> agenda+ Helping chairs with CoC, warnings, etc
14:58:35 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:59:38 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
14:59:49 <dbooth> rrsagent, pointer?
14:59:49 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2024/11/26-pwe-irc#T14-59-49
15:00:14 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
15:00:35 <wendyreid> present+
15:00:49 <dbooth> present+
15:01:28 <tzviya8> present+
15:02:28 <Jem> Jem has joined #pwe
15:02:39 <rhiaro> present+
15:02:40 <cwilso> present+
15:02:42 <rhiaro> scribe+
15:03:01 <Jem> present+
15:03:32 <tzviya8> https://www.w3.org/TR/w3c-vision/
15:03:37 <rhiaro> Topic: review of vision document
15:05:13 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
15:05:22 <JenStrickland> present+
15:05:53 <rhiaro> wendyreid: we've been asked for wide review on the vision. Main thing to focus on operational principles - any feedback to collect? Unless people have already logged issues
15:05:56 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/
15:06:14 <rhiaro> Jem: was discussed at tpac
15:06:29 <dbooth> q+
15:06:33 <cwilso> q+
15:06:35 <tzviya8> ack db
15:06:54 <rhiaro> dbooth: impressed in reading it. Length - it's too long
15:07:03 <rhiaro> tzviya8: good point ... we know.
15:07:22 <rhiaro> cwilso: I've been the main editor for years, tantek is doing as much now. Agree with your feedback.
15:07:39 <tzviya8> ack cwilso
15:07:42 <JenStrickland> Q+
15:07:52 <cwilso> https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues/169
15:08:04 <rhiaro> cwilso: we'd like feedback on this issue filed by DanA
15:08:11 <rhiaro> ... operational principle on diversity
15:08:41 <rhiaro> ... blends two things together. Gender, language, culture and also diversity of perspective specific wto w3c like organisational size
15:09:22 <rhiaro> ... I split out inclusion vs diversity. People didn't like that. PR open. We don't really have a solution today.
15:09:30 <rhiaro> ... don't know if it's necessary to fix this, or if it concerns other people in the same way
15:09:35 <rhiaro> ... I'd be fine leaving it as is
15:09:39 <wendyreid> q+
15:09:45 <rhiaro> ... or making a change. But opinions about how complex the change is
15:09:51 <rhiaro> ... back and forth in PR
15:09:58 <dbooth> q+ to ask clarification on Dan's concern
15:09:59 <rhiaro> ... Don't want to expand the document further
15:10:12 <rhiaro> ... if there are no changes right now this will probably not get addressed in initial release
15:10:15 <tzviya8> ack JenStrickland
15:10:37 <rhiaro> JenStrickland: been on my todo list. The Vision is onlys ection 3. Everything else is supporting all of that ..
15:10:38 <rhiaro> cwilso: not quite
15:10:58 <rhiaro> ... section 3 is W3C's vision for The Web. This document is the whole vision for w3c
15:11:15 <rhiaro> ... Vision for the Web is a brief recap of things that are present in eg. EWPs that underpin what the web itself is
15:11:21 <rhiaro> ... this doc is supposed to describe what we're doing as a whole
15:11:33 <rhiaro> ... section 4 is the vision as it is, and we expand on that with operational principles
15:11:46 <rhiaro> ... ideally there's a stronger tie in.. section 6.. about what they mean
15:11:59 <rhiaro> ... everyone of those should get broken into things that are even more measurable
15:12:11 <rhiaro> ... some are more difficult than others
15:13:03 <rhiaro> JenStrickland: I do a lot of work on mission/vision statements. I'm looking for a vision statement. Everything else is supporting. There's a piece that's not in section 3 or 4 explicitly but is in the EWP. I think we're at a tipping point where it's imp[ortant that we find a way to include it
15:13:12 <rhiaro> ... that is in EWP 2.9 environmentally sustainable platform
15:13:41 <rhiaro> ... I think we must as the w3c assert a responsibility for our guidelines and standards to emphasise that more in the vision. Explicit statement.
15:13:57 <rhiaro> ... at this point with ai and quantum it's a time to make sure we're asserting that across all of our WGs as an organisation
15:14:12 <tzviya8> q+ about sustainable
15:14:20 <tzviya8> ack wendyreid
15:14:26 <tzviya8> q- about
15:14:53 <rhiaro> wendyreid: cross linking to the definition fo diversity in the CoC
15:15:13 <rhiaro> ... also okay to leave it for a while before the next iteration
15:15:15 <tzviya8> ack dbooth
15:15:15 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask clarification on Dan's concern
15:15:19 <cwilso> q+ to respond to Jen about sustainability
15:15:26 <rhiaro> dbooth: more clarity on what Dan was concerned about?
15:16:54 <rhiaro> cwilso: watering down the word diversity, because it was about things that were not just the DEI version of diversity. There is a definition of diversity and this isn't that becuase it includes other things. You don't need to include big tech companies because of DEIs. You want to icnlude them because their impact is important and you want to represent that as well as other org sizes. But it seemed like we were skating over everything and
15:16:54 <rhiaro> saying DEI is just an aspect of getting diversity
15:17:01 <rhiaro> ... might not place enough emphasis on DEI diversity
15:17:18 <rhiaro> dbooth: I like the mention of both large and small companies in it. Very easy for a standards org to exclude small orgs
15:17:32 <rhiaro> Jem: I'm working for higher education. I like that perspective in the doc too
15:17:35 <tzviya8> ack next
15:17:51 <rhiaro> q+
15:18:02 <rhiaro> tzviya8: I'm fine with the definition, but happy to fine tune it. One in CoC is not perfect either.
15:18:21 <rhiaro> ... W3Cs inclusion of small orgs is actually an aspect of diversity that we need to have mentioned
15:18:47 <rhiaro> Jem: we still have a git issue open on this?
15:19:08 <rhiaro> ... Jen can add her comment on github issue about sustainability
15:19:52 <tzviya8> ack cwilso
15:19:52 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to Jen about sustainability
15:19:57 <rhiaro> cwilso: feedback on sustainability is appreciated, that's appropriate
15:20:15 <rhiaro> ... in a fairly recent edit a mention fo sustainability got erased
15:20:19 <rhiaro> ... now the only mention is in the list of HR
15:20:27 <rhiaro> ... I do think it will get added back in a future iteration
15:20:31 <rhiaro> ... as we develop what it means for w3c
15:20:37 <JenStrickland> q+
15:20:57 <rhiaro> ... one of the criticisms is anything in there that doesn't have some kind of measure of how we might impact this in the operational principles is not supportable, so we're trying to make sure we put things in there in ways that were measurable to some degree
15:21:09 <rhiaro> ... might reopen the old issue
15:21:18 <tzviya8> ack rhiaro
15:21:18 <rhiaro> tzviya8: I got the same feedback from chairs of sustyweb
15:22:12 <rhiaro> rhiaro: I don't think Dan was suggesting we remove mention of org size, just separating the two concepts
15:22:13 <tzviya8> ack JenStrickland
15:22:34 <rhiaro> JenStrickland: sustainability should be called out .. here's way we make the vision longer
15:22:52 <rhiaro> ... general sustainability, then specific web sustainability. There are ways to measure that
15:23:25 <rhiaro> ... as we continue to evolve web guidelines we need to emphasise for chairs as a criteria to consider as we do things now that we have that information. Especially as the first public draft is out and more work is happening
15:24:02 <rhiaro> ... agree with what I just heard amy say .. direction of separating the diversity or organisational sizes and industries as an add on, in the way the sentence is constructed .. "as well as" then list out those additions
15:24:08 <rhiaro> ... that way you find that balance between them
15:24:11 <csarven> present+
15:24:38 <rhiaro> cwilso: totally fine for anyone to create issues. Helpful if you say if you're providing the guidance on behalf of other people
15:25:07 <rhiaro> ... please do comment in issues
15:25:32 <rhiaro> tzviya8: do you need a pwe stamp of approval?
15:25:36 <rhiaro> cwilso: this discussion is sufficient
15:25:42 <cwilso> scribe+
15:25:49 <rhiaro> Topic: TAG IE funding
15:25:57 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/389
15:26:13 <cwilso> tzviya: we've had a number of discussions about funding for invited experts, this particularly focuses on TAG funding.
15:27:16 <cwilso> amy: we have quite a few discussions about this inside and peripherally about the TAG and the pool of applications for nominees.  It always feels like it's kind of a struggle to get diverse candidates to apply as nominees.
15:27:32 <cwilso> ... one of the hurdles is travel funding.
15:28:21 <cwilso> ... my time on TAG is not paid, although I have my travel is paid for.
15:29:02 <tzviya8> https://github.com/w3c/board/issues/115
15:29:10 <cwilso> ... we'd like to ensure we have a broad set of candidates
15:29:34 <Jem> Q+ to ask why PWE is considering the proposal
15:29:38 <tzviya8> ack Jem
15:29:38 <Zakim> Jem, you wanted to ask why PWE is considering the proposal
15:30:03 <cwilso> tzviya: thanks for putting this together.  The dollar amounts are kind of mind-blowing.
15:30:26 <cwilso> ... the board and the AB are doing less FTF travel now, so the numbers would be significantly less.
15:30:40 <cwilso> jemma: why is this proposal come to PWE?
15:30:57 <rhiaro> q+
15:31:00 <cwilso> tzviya: PWE has typically smoothed the way for participation and inclusion
15:31:19 <cwilso> jemma: I like PWE supporting the idea, but we don't have authority or funding.
15:31:32 <tzviya8> ack rhiaro
15:31:50 <Jem> Q+
15:31:54 <tzviya8> ack Jem
15:31:56 <cwilso> tzviya: true.  We aren't going to be supporting the funding.  It's whether we take the proposal to the Board, etc.
15:33:08 <cwilso> jemma: there will be a lot of funding, not only for TAG.  this is important, is this why we want to prioritize for TAG?
15:33:11 <cwilso> qq+
15:33:29 <cwilso> tzviya: not only for TAG necessarily.
15:33:39 <rhiaro> q+
15:34:00 <cwilso> jemma: just pointing out general lack of funding.  <points out inclusion fund>
15:34:06 <tzviya8> ack cwilso
15:34:06 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to Jem
15:35:43 <tzviya8> ack rhiaro
15:36:10 <cwilso> chris: we've had this issue a lot in the AB, part of the problem is that we've been trying to solve for AB+TAG at least.
15:36:25 <amy> q+ to mention some wider budget context re: travel
15:36:32 <cwilso> amy: we should try to make incremental improvements, at least.
15:36:36 <dbooth> +1 to making incremental improvents, as Amy Guy suggests
15:36:49 <dbooth> s/improvents/improvements
15:36:51 <tzviya8> +1 to rhiaro
15:37:32 <cwilso> ...even just a litte funding can make a big difference to an IE, so we should try to make some improvements.
15:37:41 <rhiaro> q+
15:37:49 <tzviya8> ack amy
15:37:49 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to mention some wider budget context re: travel
15:38:48 <cwilso> amyVDH: this is being addressed at several levels; we're working on large grants to try to get travel funding for people, and we know increasing this is important.
15:39:25 <cwilso> ...if you look at team travel, team travel was hugely cut back for budget reasons.
15:39:36 <cwilso> ...there's not a big pile of money that isn't being used.
15:40:01 <tzviya8> ack rhiaro
15:40:03 <cwilso> amy: I was under no illusions.  :)
15:40:33 <tzviya8> +1 to planning ahead
15:40:42 <dbooth> Good point Amy van der Heil
15:41:02 <csarven> q+
15:41:07 <amy> I would recommend that this fits into larger plans/discussions around who can participate at w3c
15:41:10 <cwilso> ...as to whether there are IEs currently or not, we should be thinking about it all the time.  It's less effective to wait until it's urgent.
15:41:35 <tzviya8> ack csarven
15:41:50 <rhiaro> s/amy: I was under no illusions.  :)/rhiaro: I was under no illusions.  :)
15:42:00 <amy> IE registrations are waived
15:42:03 <cwilso> sarven: are TAG participants to TPAC's registrations waived?
15:42:19 <Jem> q+
15:42:24 <tzviya8> ack Jem
15:42:55 <cwilso> jemma: in case of inclusion fund, we tried to solicit donations.  UIC was able to donate a small amount of money because it was a good thing to do.
15:43:18 <cwilso> ...could we solicit donations for this?
15:43:38 <amy> I think that fundraising internally and externally is something that's great to talk to Sylvia about
15:43:58 <amy> I think that we should be careful about using "diversity" when we mean inclusion but yes
15:43:59 <cwilso> tzviya: if I were fundraising, travel for other people would not be attractive.
15:44:01 <cwilso> +1
15:44:20 <JenStrickland> q+
15:44:40 <cwilso> I note this isn't just for TAG, particularly - it's more like "for leadership groups like TAG, AB, Board"
15:44:49 <cwilso> (This is a diversity issue for leadership)
15:44:51 <JenStrickland> q+
15:45:11 <cwilso> q+
15:45:33 <cwilso> qq
15:45:38 <cwilso> s/qq/
15:45:49 <tzviya8> ack JenStrickland
15:45:51 <dbooth> +1 to Jemma's comment
15:45:52 <cwilso> jemma: it doesn't make sense to me to pick one group
15:46:40 <cwilso> jen: IEs, even if they don't fit into the usual definition of diversity, this seems this should be a needs-based focus
15:46:46 <Jem> +1 to jen
15:47:38 <tzviya8> ack next
15:48:00 <rhiaro> cwilso: I don't think is going to be solved for one group, i'ts not about the TAG
15:48:08 <rhiaro> ... rhiaro has captured the issue as it applies to the TAG, is helpful
15:48:13 <rhiaro> ... unlikely we'd solve for TAG and not for AB
15:48:18 <rhiaro> ... limits of this issue are around leadership group
15:48:44 <rhiaro> ... the board solved this for themself because they can because they hold the budget strings. If you looked through board issues somewhere it says we'll pay for directors who don't have travel funding but we will discuss it and agree that there's a need
15:48:54 <rhiaro> ... most of that also had to do with appointments in particular
15:48:59 <Jem> +q to suggest the word, leadership group, not the specific group, tag.
15:49:38 <rhiaro> ... that said, the AB has discussed this for a super long time and gone down rabbitholes. How do I as an employee of a big company feel about this?
15:49:40 <dbooth> I'm hearing both the importance of not limiting to only the TAG, but also the importance of prioritizing what should be done first, and the importance of starting with something rather than waiting until we have an ultimate solution.  Also for fundraising more.
15:49:41 <amy> q+ to note Chris brings a good point re: Board, to bring in Directors, support is needed. a tactic could be to use that as a ladder to wider support to attract 1. governance 2. participation
15:49:47 <rhiaro> ... yes we should have a fund. W3C itself should manage it. Has to be needs based
15:50:02 <Jem> +1 to AMy van der hiel
15:50:04 <tzviya8> +1 to cwilso
15:50:37 <rhiaro> ... One of the things we should prioritise is the priority of IEs. The beneficialness of IEs. There are people who have been IEs who are incredibly beneficial, clearly putting in at least as much as it costs to let them go to tpac for free
15:50:53 <rhiaro> ... there are also people who apply because they don't want to become a member. I wouldn't want to be funding their travel. But it's not the biggest fish to fry.
15:50:58 <rhiaro> ... we should say yes it's important and we should support it
15:51:06 <rhiaro> ... should be clear when people apply that there might be needs based assessment
15:51:14 <rhiaro> ... it's going to have to go to the team, ceo and board approval
15:51:20 <rhiaro> ... Us saying it's an inclusion issue is useful
15:51:21 <tzviya8> q?
15:51:24 <tzviya8> ack Jem
15:51:24 <Zakim> Jem, you wanted to suggest the word, leadership group, not the specific group, tag.
15:51:39 <rhiaro> Jem: use leadership team not TAG or AB specifically
15:51:52 <dbooth> +1
15:51:53 <amy> +1 to not specific groups but eg: governance bodies
15:51:56 <tzviya8> +1
15:52:30 <cwilso> qq+
15:52:34 <tzviya8> ack cwilso
15:52:34 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to Jem
15:53:12 <dbooth> rhiaro, I believe the AB list is member-only
15:54:01 <rhiaro> cwilso: it's an overall committment to providing diverse perspective for an entire term. Bigger ask over a longer period, but it should be worth it. Not like someone just wants to go to TPAC one time.
15:54:11 <tzviya8> ack next
15:54:12 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to note Chris brings a good point re: Board, to bring in Directors, support is needed. a tactic could be to use that as a ladder to wider support to attract 1.
15:54:12 <Zakim> ... governance 2. participation
15:54:58 <rhiaro> amy: about the board voting this for themselves - this might be a tactic when approaching whomever gives funds. The boards has seen this is important and we'd like to see this directed to others. Let's keep things fair. Get the right kinds of people int he group to enable the support of the right kind of people. It makes logical sense
15:55:07 <Jem> another word for "leadership team" can be "governance body"?
15:55:36 <tzviya8> q?
15:55:38 <rhiaro> ... when we continue to talk abou tthings like support for this, could be tied along with .. it's understood that if someone is nominated who has IE status that there should be tacit support for their travel as part of continuing with their nomination. Tying to things that already exist helps to make things concrete
15:56:07 <rhiaro> Topic: warnings for coc violation - help for chairs
15:56:27 <rhiaro> tzviya8: plh asked about this. Tricky to write a template. Squisy documents. There' snot one set of words right for every scenario
15:56:36 <rhiaro> ... For our next meeting in 2 weeks, come prepared to brainstorm about how we could help with that that would be great
15:57:22 <rhiaro> ... Also how to handle when people accuse each other of coc violations, using it as a weapon
15:57:38 <csarven> q+
15:57:41 <tzviya8> ack csarven
15:57:41 <rhiaro> q+
15:57:54 <rhiaro> csarven: I shared the link to the solid coc enforcement guidelines - emphasise guidelines
15:58:13 <rhiaro> ... take into consideration historical context, culture, dynamic between individuals
15:58:44 <rhiaro> ... ultimately up to the community to try to make sense of whether particular levels of warning work. Our perspective wasn't templates, but trying to make an asessment of the situation. Gets fuzzy quick. We introduced it later.
15:58:51 <rhiaro> ... has kind of worked
15:59:22 <tzviya8> https://github.com/w3c/Guide/issues/187
15:59:44 <tzviya8> https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md#enforcement-guidelines
16:00:11 <amy> i wonder about "reminder" vs "warning"
16:00:34 <amy> q+ re:  reminder
16:00:38 <tzviya8> ack rhiaro
16:00:44 <tzviya8> ack amy
16:00:44 <Zakim> amy, you wanted to discuss reminder
16:00:55 <dbooth> +1 to "reminder" vs "warning"
16:01:22 <rhiaro> amy: plh uses the term "warning" which leads to more of a feeling of weaponisation. Terminology as a threat. Use something like "reminder" instead. Can we start there with plh?
16:01:27 <csarven> q+
16:01:42 <rhiaro> tzviya8: let's pick it up next time
16:02:16 <tzviya8> zakim, make logs public
16:02:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make logs public', tzviya8
16:02:27 <tzviya8> rrsagent, make logs public
16:02:33 <tzviya8> rrsagent, make minutes
16:02:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/26-pwe-minutes.html tzviya8
16:02:43 <tzviya8> zakim, clear agenda
16:02:43 <Zakim> agenda cleared
17:25:13 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
18:22:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
23:04:10 <amy> amy has joined #pwe