Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2024-12-10
Helping chairs warn about CoC violations
Tzviya: We started talking about this issue last time
… based on an issue w/ PLH.
… I know Sarven had some suggestions too.
<csarven> At the playground with dodgy wifi :)
Tzviya: Right now in the Guide, the supplement to the process,
… we have documented pieces of the process when something happens with advice to Chairs.
… Part of that process is a warning.
… Amy had added something about reminders
… It's hard to do a template as each situation is different
… Sarven shared examples from Solid. We can discuss but I hesitated to cancel
… any thoughts to add?
Sheila: I was wondering, we had a conversation a while back around the importance of establishing a philosophy of accountability
… I feel like that missing piece is fueling this complexity
… because there are people whose understanding is
… one mistake and you're out, others think about restorative justice.
… Until we have a culture of accountability I think it will be difficult
… I don't think we'll get to an ideal state. but a sense of shared accountability
… will help. This is a moment where we're feeling this absence.
Tzviya: yes, thank you for saying this. my feeling w/ the Guide and the ombuds was there was something w/ escalation.
… I know we need a gap-filler. I think that what you're saying until we have that program,
… until we have that in place, we can fill-in the gap and maybe this can work toward that accountability
Jennifer: there are some dynamics there that are difficult.
… when we have something like this it might be an opportunity for chairs to reset,
… to remind participants of the code and the reason for it, beyond personal comfort with discourse.
Tzviya: Yes. 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."
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to address how important accountability is
Amy: I think that all the focus on what Sheila and Jennifer and Tzviya said about "how we behave" is important
<Zakim> sheila, you wanted to make a suggestion related to what Jen just said :)
Sheila: I hear what you say, Jennifer. I think one guideline should be referencing the part of code that is in question.
… First that requires chairs to learn the code. Second it provides a framework for what part of our shared accountability has gone awry.
<tzviya> +1
Sheila: From my experience that's the most effective. "Hey we have language about xyz"
… then language around engagement goes naturally to mutual accountability vs. slap on the wrist conversations.
<Zakim> csarven, you wanted to discuss accountability and conduct and cultivating a healthy community
<csarven> https://
Sarven: I wanted to share a link and I'll talk on that.
… From one sample here, in the Solid CG we rant into issues where we had to enforce some guideline; from warning to banning.
… It became apparent this wasn't sufficient. it might catch isolated incidents
… but the important thing long term was a sense of community. how to communicate,
… or what's expected in W3C. While they knew how to work around conduct issues
… they might use language which might not quite trip into being reported but would trigger others or a.
… 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
… eg: training materials, we looked at W3C chairs guidelines
… I know this comes up in this group. Along these lines, Chairs are just one group of participants.
… There are things that people can read and understand and I think Amy said, if you spot behavior
… let folks know that's not welcome and point in the right direction.
… There were things detected on the line of of the code of conduct but seemed broader which might prevent people getting into arguing or harsh disputes.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to mention 3rd party authority
Tzviya: I wanted to build on something that Sheila said.
… Something that I've learned in helping my son
… is when you refer to a 3rd party authority it often has more influence than "because I said so."
… When a chair calls someone out it might not have weight.
… If I say "Amy, how dare you?!" Amy might not respect that, but if point to the authority of the Code that might.f
… eg: for someone who is religious, the authority of religion. Or at a library you might say: "we keep our voices low here.
… That is a 3rd party. that has an effect on children and adults.
… I'd love to hear ideas on how we can practically work on accountability.
...I like the idea of pointing to code.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to wonder if chairs have success suggesting "take this offline"
Amy: For Chairs, does "can you take this offline" work? Also +1 to "we don't do that here." as an approach.
Sheila: I agree, Sarven w/ the idea that it should not be a one-off.
… We want to get tangible here. The idea of "shared space agreements" is usually a pretty powerful one.
… I remember we brought in Kait Martinez on microaggressions and we discussed shared space agreements.
… I noted this might a new concept. I'm not sure if it's been normalized widely here.
… One thing we could talk about is, for the future, to be in the norm of shared space agreements. The chair can refer to that.
… It sets the tone from the beginning that we're all accountable to the space.
… For documenting, something simple I think: "make sure you address these 3 things" vs a script
… or warning vs. caution. But until we have a philosophy of accountability.
… eg: 1. remind of code they are violating. 2. talk about impact of the violation. 3. remind of the process
… not live, but give a reminder, then 4. remind how to engage in group because sometimes their needs are not being met.
… There's another conversation about what happens when it's live. There are both.
… There are suggestions for shutting down the conversation unless it's blatant violation
… but I think that addresses specifically what to put down.
Jennifer: There's another thing I've seen where chairs might also react.
… It is valuable to understand different perceptions in the moment.
Tzviya: I think we're talking about a lot of different issues.
… It's very hard to be a chair. One thing, Amy might have mentioned before on "weaponizing the Code,"
… If there's a a heated discussion in email, to say " you violated the code." That should be done person to person
… not on an archived list. Unless there's a blatant issue.
… but what do you do w/ that? When it becomes mutual accusation and therefore nothing happens.
… It raises tensions for the whole group.
… Or like Jen said, when the group has history. Some members have difficulty tolerating. How do we help chairs w/ this?
… I think all of this does, A philosophy of accountability does help.
… And when you have co-chairs who can help.
Jennifer: I like how we're batting around the idea and coming up with/ scenarios where a reminder would come in handy.
… I think also there's a need for a time out circumstance.
… eg: something triggers, someone is not self-aware or becomes defensive.
… Anyone might benefit from being told to take some time off.
… We can put together an addition to the reminder template. Some ideas for chairs, a toolkit.
… 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.
<tzviya> w3c/
Sheila: To respond to something you said, Tzviya, w/ mutual accusation,
… we're trying to get to that they're not the same. The initial violation and response should not be assessed on same level.
… You can respond later on tone, but only after the first issue has been addressed fully.
… We should remind chairs of this. eg: safety vs. comfort.
Tzviya: This is a fraught piece of the Code. The tone section got edited
… but there is a section on safety vs. comfort "Communication in a tone you don’t find congenial."
Sheila: Just a reminder to Chairs to not treat responses to complaint the same.
<tzviya> +1
Sheila: I think one reason that people are afraid of bringing up issues is this. Of how to measure and not weigh against such a response.
… We want to empower chairs to say "we'll address this first, then take feedback."
Tzviya: To your point Jen, on time off, the 2nd point is re: escalation path.
… We'd mentioned deescalation. Its a PR right now
… we haven't merged it for a variety of reasons.
… Maybe we need to move fwd w/out ombuds to allow chairs to give timeout.
… So it's not just warning then CEO but a complex and nuanced path of escalation.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to mention where discussed (offline vs. in group)
Amy: Having a more nuanced path may help alleviate the weaponization.
… Also some problems might shut down if taken offline sooner.
Sheila: I agree but am worried about over-ancoring on it. Especially on microaggressions.
… Calling it out can normalize discussing it but can also communicate to the micro-agressed that it's been seen.
… The micro-agressed person sometimes doesn't get validation if it's hidden.
… Sometimes w/ conflict it should go offline but normalizing language "just a reminder: this person's pronouns are..." can be really powerful.
… So long as we are explicit, a conflict should go offline.
<amy> +1 to Sheila's point
Tzviya: Yes, and again to a 3rd party. We can refer to the W3C code when talking about microaggressions. vs. "you committed a microaggression!"
... Particularly when calling someone out, it's important to not make someone feel awful.
<amy> +1 to Tzviya's point
Sheila: We're not departing from the commenter's request. We could make guidelines from what they suggested w/ some structure. I want to make sure we get what you need here, Tzviya.
Tzviya: It won't be a template, but some guidelines. I've been taking notes which I think will be sufficient, I hope.
<JenStrickland> 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.
Tzviya: i can add here, put together ideas and circulate:
<tzviya> remind about specific CoC violated, remind how to rectify, ask what support is needed to engage appropriately
<tzviya> 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
<sheila> 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
Tzviya: Those could each have its own line. We can bring this to the next meeting or I can put it in GH.
<amy> +1 to adding to GH so others can see but also happy to discuss more at the next meeting
Tzviya: The escalation process is tricky as there isn't much of one. the next question is how to outline escalation before ombuds.
Sheila: There is escalation to removal?
Tzviya: Going from warning to removal is stark. We need more than those 2 options.
Sheila: Maybe scratch that and ask what sup.port is needed to align w/ the Code,
… if there's a discussion to be had
Tzviya: I'll add this to my list of things to discuss w/ Seth.
… aAe we comfortable with that set of things to put in the guide?
Amy: I'd only add the points about shared space agreement of behavior, and the 3rd party (eg: this is how we behave).
Sheila: We should start talking about shared space agreements.
Amy: I think we already have this shared space, we just don't call it that? It's worth expanding on.
Tzviya: Anyone in angroup has agreed to the Code.
Sheila: To mention we recognize these are practices and tools we can develop to support chairs:
… shared space agreement and escalation process.
… So folks have transparency that they are important.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to discuss shared space agreement
Amy: Yes, it's not a new thing, just an extended way of what we already do.
Tzviya: We can put as: here's what we have today, here's what can be expanded.
… Great. Looking at the calendar, 2 weeks is Dec 24th. I assume many people are off so I'll cancel. So we'll meet again in January.