Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2025-01-07
Ombuds Program
Sheila: I have a meeting with Catrina, Seth's Chief of Staff, right after this
Tzviya: we'll take the documents that have been sitting in GitHub for a long time and write an escalation path when Ombuds are not available
<tzviya> https://
Tzviya: we have things in several places now'
… PLH recommended the PWE landing page ^^
… that page has a link to a procedures document
… we'll eliminate this page and move the procedures information to /Guide
… we'll be able to update /Guide via GitHub
… if this group has consensus about what should go into /Guide, PLH feels it unlikely that the Team will revise our consensus
… my inclination is to have education and training in our repo
… feedback about the CoC doesn't belong here; it is already in GitHub
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask about "the guide"
<dbooth> Is this what you mean by "the guide" https://
David: do you mean ^^
Tzviya: yes
… PLH is working on consolidating things there
David: that document is mostly an organization of links right now
<wendyreid> https://
David: it seems reasonably well organized as a collection of links
<tzviya> https://
David: are you expecting to add content as well?
Tzviya: it has both
… we could highlight CoC more
<wendyreid> https://
Tzviya: we would have Procedures as a sublink
… it would live in the GitHub repo for /Guide and therefore be easier for us to update
… we'll rewrite and relocate the procedures page
… then rewrite it again when we have Ombuds
… there will be other materials we can add; e.g. Incident Resolution
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to discuss more clarification
David: are we talking about merging incident resolution into the 'suspension' page?
Tzviya: no, it will be its own page
David: so there will be overlap
Tzviya: we'll work out those details, for now work on the escalation path
Wendy: there's desire to revise /Guide in general
… it is organized but still hard to find something you're looking for
… we'll work with Team on that
Jen: do we have a list of what kinds of things can go into /Guide?
Tzviya: as of now we're working on escalation aka Incident Resolution
… Sheila and Catrina will let us know in the future what to document regarding Ombuds
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to recommend limiting expansion of guide right now
<amy> right now it is Guide -> Running a Group ->-> (subsection) People management ->
Tzviya: for the short term it's the incident resolution document and possibly editing the suspension document based on what we conclude for incident resolution
Amy: let's address what comes under Code of Conduct and the procedures; let's focus there
… Procedures is linked from /Guide
Tzviya: yes, but PLH wants to pull these strings into /Guide
Amy: please include the Team, in particular Comm Team
Tzviya: sure
<tzviya> https://
Tzviya: we have ^^
<tzviya> https://
<tzviya> w3c/
Tzviya: we have a lot of material to work from
… these documents currently all assume the existence of ombuds; our task now is to create versions that do not rely on ombuds
… in particular, look at escalation
… how can we make a functional path of escalation?
… example: a participant in a WG has an issue with the chair; to whom do they go?
… what can we document that is not "go straight to the CEO"?
Sheila: it should be someone on the Team before the CEO
<amy> + to mention good and bad ideas for escalation including: option to reach out to more than one person, possibly a list (are there ways this can be a not bad idea?); i wonder about chair/team contact/area lead
Sheila: someone who works closely with the CEO but is not in a position to ban someone from the Consortium but who could escalate if needed
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask about existing ombuds
Tzviya: we have some Ombuds listed
… do they have training
<dbooth> ralph: We have not had any formal training? for current ombuds.
Amy: I've heard that if an issue only goes to one person they can get stuck
… and little accountability
… including Catrina is a good idea if it's a message to Seth
… but including an archived list could be bad; we don't want personal details there
[the ombuds@w3.org alias is a set of people, and not archived]
… could things go to the Team Contact [of the WG] and to an area lead?
… to keep it from being funneled to just one person without followup
<dbooth> Including the area lead sounds like a good idea to me.
Sheila: I'm wary of using the ombuds@ email before there is training set up
<tzviya> +1
Sheila: I'd rather start fresh
<amy> I also wonder about some kind of training. even something like non-violent communication that team or others could take
<amy> +1 to "and/or"
Sheila: I think and/or rather than just and is good
<dbooth> +1 to and/or
Sheila: having a few options of people to go to; good practice to document multiple possibilities
… a rational next step could be if the chair doesn't engage, the chairs of the PWE CG could be a backup
<amy> +1 to Chairs and I might add in some TF - as Sheila just mentioned, those who have some training
Sheila: and there's also access to the CEO if further escalation is needed
Jen: any of us in PWE could receive training too
… in the work we've been doing we have ability to be neutral, see the big picture, genuinely want to help
… make sure we all get training when the training is ready
… I'd love to see more international people involved in PWE
… I can make some recommendations
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to echo PWE idea from Shiela with option for Chairs+TF training?
<dbooth> +1 to amy's suggestion for training
Amy: if we see a change to the procedures as an interim step and we create guidelines it would be good to make training available for interested people
… maybe it's open to chairs
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to mention liability (sorry)
Amy: anyone identified in procedures should have training
Tzviya: +1; that's an important point
… I also wanted to point out liability considerations
… these are questions that need to be discussed with Christine
<amy> +1 to including Christine for questions of training etc
Tzviya: the PWE CG has 40+ "members"; not everyone in the CG can be trained
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I think we have an obligation to have the current ombuds somewhere in any interim escalation path, because that's the guidance we've been giving and will be giving when the ombud program is in place.
Tzviya: we need to be careful about who is named in our interim process
David: given that the guidance thus far has included mention of ombuds, I think it is important that the interim process include mention of current ombuds
Tzviya: I don't think so
Ralph: we need to revisit the list
<amy> i would recommend we not label anyone as a kind of interim ombudsman. we had at MIT different levels of duty for reporting. there was a term "Responsible Employee obligation" for which one had to be trained
Tzviya: we can have multiple options on where to escalate
<amy> eg: https://
Tzviya: I'm soliciting ideas; we'll do some drafting on how to move forward
… we had concepts such as mediation and I don't think we're ready for that
Sheila: I think the next step is to learn Catrina's expectations
… beyond that, who makes the most sense among the options
… once we have the ombuds program we can add other escalation possibilities
… simpler is better at this stage
<JenStrickland> Can it be you, Sheila? :)
<dbooth> +1 for simple
<JenStrickland> who is for accessibility?
Amy: we have Team Contacts for each Group
<amy> https://
Amy: if you look at the staff list you see more nuance
<dbooth> ralph: There are different sets of responsibilities. If an issue involves a team member, different criteria may determine who to contact. Don't necessarily expect those people identified with specific technical areas to be involved with this kind of issues.
<dbooth> I need to drop. Thanks all!
<sheila> +1 to this idea
Tzviya: it's possible that Christine and Catrina might be resources
… we need an interim process, may be short-term
<sheila> (Christine and/or Catrina I mean)
Tzviya: we can write the shell of a document without names
… it's going to be more work to write this document as we don't yet have a clear path
<amy> +1 to help
Sheila: I'm happy to help
Tzviya: thank you very much
Amy: are there other reactions to reporting to a list or an alias?
Ralph: both cases are important: an alias that goes to a set of responsible people as well as an enumeration of who is on that list so that an individual can be contacted
Sheila: I feel strongly there should be an alias that allows everything to be tracked
… in the interim, in the absence of a clear process, it could be more dangerous to have that
<amy> +1 to Sheila's nuance for short term no, long term absolutely
Sheila: so no in the short term but longer-term absolutely
… in the interim, one-to-one communcation
… in the long term there needs to be a secure place where everything goes
Tzviya: +1
… we have to figure out the archiving
<amy> I appreciate Tzviya's long term thinking for tracking
Tzviya: we need training
… the majority of our issues are about deescalation
Tzviya: thanks; we're adjourned