14:46:04 RRSAgent has joined #pwe 14:46:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/12/10-pwe-irc 14:46:10 Meeting: PWE 14:46:15 Chair: PWE 14:46:24 Date: 2024-12-10 15:00:23 JenStrickland has joined #pwe 15:00:27 present+ 15:01:59 present+ 15:02:28 regrets+ Ralkph 15:02:37 regrets+ Ralph 15:02:43 regrets- Ralkph 15:03:27 nigel has joined #pwe 15:06:46 regrets+ Wendy 15:06:47 sheila has joined #pwe 15:06:51 amy has joined #pwe 15:06:51 regrets+ Chris 15:07:04 present+ 15:07:12 present+ 15:07:48 present+ 15:07:58 zakim, prepare meeting 15:07:58 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:07:59 Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG 15:08:00 scribe: amy 15:08:03 chair: Tzviya 15:08:22 Topic: Helping chairs warn about CoC violations 15:08:34 https://github.com/w3c/Guide/issues/187 -> GH issue #187 15:08:43 Tzviya: we started talking about this last time 15:08:54 ... based on an issue w/ PLH 15:09:03 ... I know Sarven had some suggestions too. 15:09:16 At the playground with dodgy wifi :) 15:09:18 ... Right now in the Guide, the supplement to the process, 15:09:32 ... we have documented pieces of the process when something happens, advice to Chairs 15:09:38 ... part of that process is a warning 15:10:07 ... Amy had added something about reminders 15:10:21 ... something about it's hard to do a template as each situation is different 15:10:44 ... Sarven shared examples from Solid. We can discuss but I hesitated to cancel 15:11:25 ... any thoughts to add? 15:11:55 Shiela: I was wondering, we had a conversation a while back around the importance of establhisig a philosophy of accountablity 15:12:02 ... I feel like that missing piece is fueling this complexity 15:12:12 ... bc there are ppl whose understanding is 15:12:27 ... one mistake and you're out, others think about restorative justice 15:12:38 ... until we have a culture of accountablity I think it will be difficult 15:12:56 ... i dont' think we'll get to an ideal state. but a sense of shared accountablity 15:13:03 ... will help. this is a moment where we're feeling this absence 15:13:28 Tzviya: yes, thank you for saying this. my feeling w/ the Guide and the ombuds was there was something w/ escalation 15:13:39 ... I know we need a gap-filler. I think that what you're saying until we have that program 15:14:01 ... until we have that in place we can fill-in the gap and maybe this can work toward taht accountability 15:14:05 q+ to address how important accountablity is 15:14:25 Jennifer: anyone else participate in CSS? there are some dynamics there that are difficult 15:15:20 ... when we have something like this it might be an opportunity for chairs to reset 15:15:48 s/anyone else participate in CSS? // 15:15:49 ... to remind participants of the code and the reason for it, beyond personal comfort with discourse 15:17:11 q+ to make a suggestion related to what Jen just said :) 15:17:13 q+ re accountability and conduct and cultivating a healthy community 15:17:54 ack amy 15:17:54 amy, you wanted to address how important accountablity is 15:17:54 Tzviya: when we talk about Code, it's not just so I say "you have to do this for me" it's to demonstrate "this is how we behave" 15:19:41 q+ to mention 3rd party authority 15:19:44 ack next 15:19:45 sheila, you wanted to make a suggestion related to what Jen just said :) 15:19:52 Amy: I think that all the focus on what Sheila and Jennifer and Tzviya said about "how we behave" 15:20:18 Sheila: I hear what you say Jennifer. I think one guideline should be referencing the part of code that is in question 15:20:37 ... first that requires chairs to learn the code. second it provides a framework for what part of our shared accountaiblyt has gone awry 15:20:42 +1 15:20:55 ... from my experience that's the most effective. "Hey we have language about xyzzy" 15:21:12 ...then language around engagement goes naturally to mutual accountability vs. slap on the wrist conversation 15:21:19 ack next 15:21:20 csarven, you wanted to discuss accountability and conduct and cultivating a healthy community 15:21:27 https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/576 15:21:35 Sarven: I wanted to share a link and i'll talk on that 15:22:12 ... from one sample here, in Solid community. we rant into issues where we had to enforce some guidelines from warning to banning 15:22:29 ... it became apparent this wasn't sufficient. it might catch iolsated incidents 15:22:50 ...but the important thing long term was a sense of community. how to communicate, 15:23:05 ... or what's expected in W3C. while they knew how to work around conduct issues 15:23:18 ...they might use language which might not trip into being reported but would trigger others 15:23:35 ... differences of views. I created this discussion long ago, we didn't get to expand on it, to add the right types of training material 15:23:50 ... eg: training materials, eg: W3C chairs guidelines 15:24:02 ... I know this comes up in this group. .along these lines, Chairs are just one group of participants 15:24:16 ... things that ppl can read and understand and think Amy said, if you spot behavior 15:24:24 ... let folks know that's not welcome and point in the right direction 15:25:00 .... there were things detected on the line of conduct but seemed broader which might prevent ppl getting into arguing or harsh disputes 15:25:28 q+ to wonder if chairs have success suggesting "take this offline" 15:26:10 ack me 15:26:10 tzviya, you wanted to mention 3rd party authority 15:26:17 Tzviya: I wanted to build on something that Shiela said 15:26:37 ... something that i've learned in helping my son 15:26:52 q+ 15:26:53 ... is when you refer to a 3rd party authority it often has more influence "i said so" 15:27:05 ... when a chair calls someone out it might not have weight 15:27:22 ... if I say "Amy, how dare you?!" Amy might not respect that. but if point to the author of the Code 15:27:38 ... eg: someone who is religious, the authority of religion. or at a library "we keep our voices low" 15:27:47 ... that is a 3rd party. that has an effect on children and adults 15:28:18 ... I'd love to hear ideas on how we can practically work on accountablity 15:28:20 ack amy 15:28:20 amy, you wanted to wonder if chairs have success suggesting "take this offline" 15:28:23 .. .I like the idea of pointing to code 15:30:09 ack sheila 15:30:21 Amy: does "can you take this offline" work also +1 to "we don't do that here 15:30:29 Sheila: i agree, Sarven w/ the it should not be a one-off 15:30:43 ...we want to get tangible here. the idea of shared space agreements is usually a pretty powerful one 15:31:00 ... i remember we brought int Kait Martinez on microagressions and we discussed shared space agreements 15:31:11 .. I noted this might a new concept. i'm not sure if it's been normalized 15:31:32 ... one thing we could talk about is for future, to be in the norm of shared space agreements. the chair can refer to 15:31:46 ... it sets the tone from the beginning that we're all accountable to space 15:32:01 ... for documenting, something simple I think "make sure you address these 3 things" vs a script 15:32:15 ... or warning vs. caution. but until we have a philosophy of accountablity 15:32:34 ... eg: 1. remind of code they are violating. 2. talk about impact of the violation. 3. remind of process 15:32:57 .... not live, but reminder, then 4. remind how to engage in group bc sometimes their needs are not being met 15:33:08 ... there's another conversation about what happens when it's live. there are both. 15:33:26 ... there are suggestions for shutting down the converstaion unless it's blatant violation 15:33:38 q? 15:33:39 ... but I think that addresses specifically what the put down 15:34:44 Jennifer: there's another thing I've seen where chairs might also react 15:35:02 ... it is valuable to understand different perceptions in the moment 15:35:34 Tzviya: I think we're talking about a lot of different issues. 15:35:48 ... it's very hard to be a chair. one thing, Amy might have mentioned before on "weaponizing the Code" 15:36:06 .. .a heated discussion in email, to say " you violated the code" should be done person to person 15:36:29 ... not on an archived list. unless there's a blatant issue 15:37:03 ... but what do you do w/ that? when it becomes mutual accusation and therefore nothing happened 15:37:14 ...and it raised tensions for the whole group 15:37:43 .. or like Jen said, when the group has history. some members have difficulty tolerating. how do we help chairs w/ this 15:37:50 q+ 15:37:58 ... I think all of this does, a philosophy of accountablity does help 15:38:05 ... and when you have co-chairs who can help 15:38:12 ack JenStrickland 15:38:30 Jennifer: I like how we're batting around the idea and coming up with/ scenarios where a reminder would come in handy 15:38:41 ... I think also there's a need for a time out circumstance 15:38:50 q+ 15:39:01 ... eg: something triggers, someone is not self-aware or defensive 15:39:20 ... even I might benefit from being told to take some time off 15:40:06 ... we can put together an addition to the reminder template. some ideas for chairs, a toolkit 15:40:32 ... getting to simple is a lot of work but I think in this case, being simple in what we provide is a good investment for chairs 15:40:44 ack sheila 15:41:22 https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/364 15:41:30 Sheila: to respond to something you said Tzivya. w/ mutual accusation 15:41:54 ... we're trying to get to is they're not the same. the initial violation and response should not be assessed on same level. 15:42:12 ... you can respond later, but only after the first issue has been addressed fully 15:42:21 ... we should remind chairs of this. eg: safety vs. comfort 15:42:39 Tzviya: this is a fraught piece of code. the tone section got edited. 15:43:16 ... but there is a section on safety vs. comfort "Communication in a tone you don’t find congenial." 15:43:36 Shiela: a reminder that not treating responses to complaint the same 15:43:42 +1 15:43:48 ... I think one reason that ppl are afraid of this, of how to measure and not weigh against. 15:44:00 ... to empower chairs to say "we'll address this first, then feedback" 15:44:14 q+ to mention where discussed (offline vs. in group) 15:44:40 Tzviya: to your point Jen, on time off. the 2nd point is re: escalation path 15:44:50 ... we'd preferred for de-escalation. its a PR right now 15:45:05 ... we haven't merged it for a variety of reasons 15:45:20 ... maybe we need to move fwd w/out ombds to allow chairs to give timeout 15:45:32 ...not just warning then CEO but a complex and nuance path of escalation 15:45:37 ack amy 15:45:37 amy, you wanted to mention where discussed (offline vs. in group) 15:46:19 Amy: having a more nuanced path may help alleviate the weaponization 15:47:30 ... also some problems might shut down if taken offline sooner 15:47:50 Sheila: i agree but am worried about over-ancoring on it. esp on microagressions. 15:48:10 ... calling it out can normalize it, but can also communicate to the micro-agreesed it's been seen 15:48:18 ack amy 15:48:19 ... the microagressed person sometimes doesn't get validation 15:48:49 ... sometimes w/ conflict it should go offline. but normalizing language "just a reminder "This persons' pronouns are" can be really powerful 15:49:00 ... so long as we are explicit, a conflict should go offline 15:49:06 +1 to Sheila's point 15:49:37 Tzviya: yes, and again the 3rd party. we refer to the W3C code when talking about microgressions. vs. you committed a microagression 15:49:45 +1 to Tzviya's point 15:49:58 Tzviya: particularly when calling someone out, it's important to not make someone feel awful 15:50:29 Sheila: we're not departing from the commenter's request. we could make guidelines from what they suggested w/ some structure. to make sure we get what you need here Tzviya. 15:50:45 Tzviya: I won't be a template. but some guidelines. I've been taking notes which I think will be sufficient, I hope 15:50:46 I think there's an opportunity with this to also share that we're doing it to the full membership, as a reminder to them of the CoC purpose to cultivate a positive work environment and not be a cudgel. 15:51:02 Tzviya: i can add here, put together ideas and circulate 15:53:05 remind about specific CoC violated, remind how to rectify, ask what support is needed to engage appropriately 15:53:05 Note the section on saftey v comfort and clarify the distinction between a complaint and a response to complaint, ok to remind about minor violations (like microaggressions) in neutral tone in public, everything else should be in private 15:53:39 I'd add asking if there's any support they need to meet the CoC and also reminding them of the escalation process if the behavior continues 15:53:40 Tzviya: those could each have its own line. we can bring this to the next meeting or i can put in GH 15:53:55 +1 to adding to GH so others can see but also happy to discuss more at the next meeting 15:54:20 Tzvya: the escalation process is tricky as there isn't much of one. next question is how to outline escalation before ombuds 15:54:26 Shiela: there is escalation to removal? 15:54:38 Tzviya: going from warning to removal is stark. we ned more than those 2 options 15:54:51 Sheila: maybe scratch that and ask what support needed to align w/ Code 15:54:58 ... if there's a discussion to be had 15:55:13 Tzviya: I'll add this to my list of things to discuss w/ Seth 15:55:30 ... are we comfortable with/ that set of things to put in the guide? 15:56:48 Amy: I'd only add the points about shared space agreement of behavior, and the 3rd party (eg: how we behave) 15:57:01 Sheila: we should start talking about shared space 15:57:13 I think we already have this shared space. we just don't call it that? 15:57:26 Tzviya: anyone in group has agreed to Code 15:57:47 Sheila: to mention we recognize these are practices and tools we can develop to support chairs 15:57:50 ... shared space agreement and escalation process 15:58:03 ... so folks have transparency on that they are important 15:58:17 q+ re: shared space agreement 15:58:39 ack amy 15:58:39 amy, you wanted to discuss shared space agreement 15:59:25 Amy: not a new thing, just an extended way of what to do. 15:59:35 Tzviya; we can put as here's what we have today, here's what can be expand3ed 16:00:06 .. great. looking at the calendar. 2 weeks is Dec 24th. I assume many ppl are off. so i'll cancel. so we'll meet again in January 16:00:09 JenStrickland: I haven't seen GoT. This is just my attic and hammock =) 16:00:24 rrsagent, make minutes 16:00:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/12/10-pwe-minutes.html amy