Meeting minutes
<tzviya8> Date: 2024-11-26
<tzviya8> https://
review of vision document
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
<wendyreid> https://
Jem: was discussed at tpac
dbooth: impressed in reading it. Length - it's too long
tzviya8: good point ... we know.
cwilso: I've been the main editor for years, tantek is doing as much now. Agree with your feedback.
<cwilso> w3c/
cwilso: we'd like feedback on this issue filed by DanA
… operational principle on diversity
… blends two things together. Gender, language, culture and also diversity of perspective specific wto w3c like organisational size
… I split out inclusion vs diversity. People didn't like that. PR open. We don't really have a solution today.
… don't know if it's necessary to fix this, or if it concerns other people in the same way
… I'd be fine leaving it as is
… or making a change. But opinions about how complex the change is
… back and forth in PR
… Don't want to expand the document further
… if there are no changes right now this will probably not get addressed in initial release
JenStrickland: been on my todo list. The Vision is onlys ection 3. Everything else is supporting all of that ..
cwilso: not quite
… section 3 is W3C's vision for The Web. This document is the whole vision for w3c
… Vision for the Web is a brief recap of things that are present in eg. EWPs that underpin what the web itself is
… this doc is supposed to describe what we're doing as a whole
… section 4 is the vision as it is, and we expand on that with operational principles
… ideally there's a stronger tie in.. section 6.. about what they mean
… everyone of those should get broken into things that are even more measurable
… some are more difficult than others
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
… that is in EWP 2.9 environmentally sustainable platform
… I think we must as the w3c assert a responsibility for our guidelines and standards to emphasise that more in the vision. Explicit statement.
… 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
wendyreid: cross linking to the definition fo diversity in the CoC
… also okay to leave it for a while before the next iteration
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask clarification on Dan's concern
dbooth: more clarity on what Dan was concerned about?
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
saying DEI is just an aspect of getting diversity
… might not place enough emphasis on DEI diversity
dbooth: I like the mention of both large and small companies in it. Very easy for a standards org to exclude small orgs
Jem: I'm working for higher education. I like that perspective in the doc too
tzviya8: I'm fine with the definition, but happy to fine tune it. One in CoC is not perfect either.
… W3Cs inclusion of small orgs is actually an aspect of diversity that we need to have mentioned
Jem: we still have a git issue open on this?
… Jen can add her comment on github issue about sustainability
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to Jen about sustainability
cwilso: feedback on sustainability is appreciated, that's appropriate
… in a fairly recent edit a mention fo sustainability got erased
… now the only mention is in the list of HR
… I do think it will get added back in a future iteration
… as we develop what it means for w3c
… 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
… might reopen the old issue
tzviya8: I got the same feedback from chairs of sustyweb
rhiaro: I don't think Dan was suggesting we remove mention of org size, just separating the two concepts
JenStrickland: sustainability should be called out .. here's way we make the vision longer
… general sustainability, then specific web sustainability. There are ways to measure that
… 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
… 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
… that way you find that balance between them
cwilso: totally fine for anyone to create issues. Helpful if you say if you're providing the guidance on behalf of other people
… please do comment in issues
tzviya8: do you need a pwe stamp of approval?
cwilso: this discussion is sufficient
TAG IE funding
<wendyreid> w3c/
tzviya: we've had a number of discussions about funding for invited experts, this particularly focuses on TAG funding.
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.
… one of the hurdles is travel funding.
… my time on TAG is not paid, although I have my travel is paid for.
<tzviya8> w3c/
amy: we'd like to ensure we have a broad set of candidates
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to ask why PWE is considering the proposal
tzviya: thanks for putting this together. The dollar amounts are kind of mind-blowing.
… the board and the AB are doing less FTF travel now, so the numbers would be significantly less.
jemma: why is this proposal come to PWE?
tzviya: PWE has typically smoothed the way for participation and inclusion
jemma: I like PWE supporting the idea, but we don't have authority or funding.
tzviya: true. We aren't going to be supporting the funding. It's whether we take the proposal to the Board, etc.
jemma: there will be a lot of funding, not only for TAG. this is important, is this why we want to prioritize for TAG?
tzviya: not only for TAG necessarily.
jemma: just pointing out general lack of funding. <points out inclusion fund>
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to Jem
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.
amy: we should try to make incremental improvements, at least.
<dbooth> +1 to making incremental improvements, as Amy Guy suggests
<tzviya8> +1 to rhiaro
amy: even just a litte funding can make a big difference to an IE, so we should try to make some improvements.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to mention some wider budget context re: travel
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.
… if you look at team travel, team travel was hugely cut back for budget reasons.
… there's not a big pile of money that isn't being used.
rhiaro: I was under no illusions. :)
<tzviya8> +1 to planning ahead
<dbooth> Good point Amy van der Heil
<amy> I would recommend that this fits into larger plans/discussions around who can participate at w3c
rhiaro: 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.
<amy> IE registrations are waived
sarven: are TAG participants to TPAC's registrations waived?
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.
… could we solicit donations for this?
<amy> I think that fundraising internally and externally is something that's great to talk to Sylvia about
<amy> I think that we should be careful about using "diversity" when we mean inclusion but yes
tzviya: if I were fundraising, travel for other people would not be attractive.
<cwilso> +1
I note this isn't just for TAG, particularly - it's more like "for leadership groups like TAG, AB, Board"
(This is a diversity issue for leadership)
<dbooth> +1 to Jemma's comment
jemma: it doesn't make sense to me to pick one group
jen: IEs, even if they don't fit into the usual definition of diversity, this seems this should be a needs-based focus
<Jem> +1 to jen
cwilso: I don't think is going to be solved for one group, i'ts not about the TAG
… rhiaro has captured the issue as it applies to the TAG, is helpful
… unlikely we'd solve for TAG and not for AB
… limits of this issue are around leadership group
… 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
… most of that also had to do with appointments in particular
… 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?
<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.
cwilso: yes we should have a fund. W3C itself should manage it. Has to be needs based
<Jem> +1 to AMy van der hiel
<tzviya8> +1 to cwilso
cwilso: 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
… 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.
… we should say yes it's important and we should support it
… should be clear when people apply that there might be needs based assessment
… it's going to have to go to the team, ceo and board approval
… Us saying it's an inclusion issue is useful
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to suggest the word, leadership group, not the specific group, tag.
Jem: use leadership team not TAG or AB specifically
<dbooth> +1
<amy> +1 to not specific groups but eg: governance bodies
<tzviya8> +1
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to Jem
<dbooth> rhiaro, I believe the AB list is member-only
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.
<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. governance 2. participation
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
<Jem> another word for "leadership team" can be "governance body"?
amy: 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
warnings for coc violation - help for chairs
tzviya8: plh asked about this. Tricky to write a template. Squisy documents. There' snot one set of words right for every scenario
… For our next meeting in 2 weeks, come prepared to brainstorm about how we could help with that that would be great
… Also how to handle when people accuse each other of coc violations, using it as a weapon
csarven: I shared the link to the solid coc enforcement guidelines - emphasise guidelines
… take into consideration historical context, culture, dynamic between individuals
… 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.
… has kind of worked
<tzviya8> w3c/
<tzviya8> https://
<amy> i wonder about "reminder" vs "warning"
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to discuss reminder
<dbooth> +1 to "reminder" vs "warning"
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?
tzviya8: let's pick it up next time