13:56:56 RRSAgent has joined #pwe 13:57:01 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/13-pwe-irc 13:57:08 Zakim has joined #pwe 13:57:41 Meeting: PWE 13:57:49 Date: 2025-05-13 13:57:58 dbooth has joined #pwe 13:57:59 Chairs: Tzviya, Wendy 13:58:05 rrsagent, pointer? 13:58:05 See https://www.w3.org/2025/05/13-pwe-irc#T13-58-05 13:58:26 rrsagent, make logs public 14:01:15 amy has joined #pwe 14:01:23 JenStrickland has joined #pwe 14:01:44 present+ 14:01:48 present+ 14:01:50 regrets+ 14:01:51 present+ 14:02:27 present+ 14:02:33 regrets+ Wendy 14:04:05 scribe+ 14:04:11 meeting: PWE meeting 14:04:15 present+ 14:04:21 chair: Tzviya 14:04:28 rrsagent, start meeting 14:04:28 I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', amy. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:04:34 zakim, start meeting 14:04:34 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:04:36 Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG 14:04:49 regrets: Wendy, Jemma 14:04:51 https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/409 14:04:56 Topic: Code of Conduct 14:05:07 Tzviya: I'd like to discuss how we follow up on this 14:05:09 present+ 14:05:22 q+ 14:05:25 ... I saw some action. Martin was concerned we had no definition for sexuality 14:05:39 ... Respec? indicates there might be a spelling issue 14:05:56 Chris: Martin wasn't complaining about the spelling. the red squiggle means it's a defined term 14:06:08 ... but if we remove the it will remove the squiggle 14:06:18 Tzivya: can you update? 14:06:19 ack cwilso 14:06:32 Chris: Martin responded that we could remove the link (not the word) 14:06:44 Tzviya: ok to remove the definition? 14:06:48 [agreement] 14:07:03 s/the definition/the suggestion to define 14:13:14 Tzviya: we've discussed Code issues in the past. Wendy had previous worked on issues but she's busy 14:13:20 https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues?q=state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22CoC-editorial%22 14:13:28 ... if you take a look at the Code editorial 14:13:38 ... Chris agreed to work on 409 14:14:19 ... for #404 and 405 we discussed. I believe we ended on an agreement. 14:14:47 ... i'll do a #405 14:14:58 Amy: I've heard discussion of #404 (dog piling) 14:15:03 ... I'd be willing to look at this 14:15:41 q+ 14:16:16 q+ 14:16:21 Tzviya: Sheila discussed it might be too easy to turn around. it might be intimidation 14:16:23 PR#410 fixes #409, will just need an approver to merge. 14:16:35 ack cw 14:16:45 Amy: I've been trying to pay attention tot his to learn more, related to behaviors i've heard about. also a concern about descriptions which are not just on lists in groups 14:16:59 Chris: I'm happy for Amy to work on this. I think this happens unintentionally. 14:17:12 q+ to comment that the term dogpiling is iffy 14:17:13 ... sometimes it happens when someone does a strong rebuttal and others add their own 14:17:27 ... it's probably good to have as an extra term. maybe "dog piling" is not the term to use 14:17:29 ack JenStrickland 14:17:43 Jenn: I agree this is something to be addressed. it's happening in WCAG 14:17:48 "swarming" might be an acceptable alternative. 14:17:57 ... where individuals work on AG WG and go to social media and link to issues 14:18:05 q+ to ask how to distinguish dogpiling from a helpful indication of support? Intimidation feels like the key differentiator. 14:18:10 ... and invite comments or make fun of individuals 14:18:16 s/WCAG/AG WG 14:18:22 .. I'm not sure i've seen it getting better. 14:18:51 ... one of the things I think i've seen happen is I will offer info, someone will disagree and 5 more men will join the conv to boost the guy 14:19:01 .. instead of opening the conversation to ask "what do you mean?" 14:19:38 ... seeking to understand POV. I think that if we don't do that as W3C, we are blocking innovation, blocking diverse perspectives 14:20:04 .. i've heard from many ppl who are no longer in this group that we're losing participation 14:20:27 ... maybe a comment in CoC. to say "we're not trying to bully". but remind principles 14:20:32 ack tzviya 14:20:32 tzviya, you wanted to comment that the term dogpiling is iffy 14:20:34 ... it's definitely cruddy 14:20:47 Tzviya: I hear what you're saying. the reason that I have trouble w/ this and maybe Sheila too 14:21:06 ...we have a lot in the section in sustained disruption of discussion 14:21:23 ... concern trolling, sea-lining, argument ad nauseam. i was hestitatnt to add 14:21:43 ... we don't normally name some specific behaviors. what makes this different from supportive comments is the intimidation aspect 14:21:51 ...we don't name every single negative behavior 14:22:07 q+ to mention habits of repetition 14:22:32 Tzviya: we may want to add a section in deliberate intimidation. we may not need to add "deliberate" or maybe we do 14:22:40 s/sea-lining/sea-lioning 14:22:47 ...I agree w/ shiela's concerns that this is so easily turned around. if ppl are having a true technical debate 14:23:05 ... and it gets complicated. and therefore lengthy. ppl could say it's violating code 14:23:12 q+ 14:23:24 ...we are threading a needle here. the problem we're facing is intimidation and not robustness 14:23:27 ack dbooth 14:23:27 dbooth, you wanted to ask how to distinguish dogpiling from a helpful indication of support? Intimidation feels like the key differentiator. 14:23:31 ack dbooth 14:23:56 David: I think you said what i was going to say. it's often helpful to hear multiple ppl voicing support for something when looking for consensus 14:24:19 ...we want to make sure we're not prohibiting that. I think you said what i wanted to say. it's hard to put in a def of "dog piling" that's hard not to turn around 14:24:26 ack amy 14:24:26 amy, you wanted to mention habits of repetition 14:24:29 ... maybe putting in more broad refs of bad behavior 14:24:33 scribe+ 14:26:08 amy: some of this is already included in the CoC, which starts with the idea of asking people to be conscious of how they respond. Consensus is achieved by +1. We don't want to rule out several people saying the same thing. We might want to remind people that echoing negative comments is negative. Similar to pushing the elevator button once it's 14:26:08 been pushed. 14:26:53 amy: Some people might need to "close the loop in their head" by commenting about something that has already been said 14:27:08 q? 14:27:11 ack JenStrickland 14:27:49 Jenn: from an a11y perspective, one of the struggles of ppl is when the conv go and go and go 14:28:05 q+ to comment on chairs' training 14:28:16 ... something that we try to do in a professional evn. we try to say "looks like we have a lot of ideas. it might b useful to put a pin in this now and schedule a conv" 14:28:53 .. I think i see CSS and Web Performance group do this. it's hard to do this, to follow conversations where everything is in the air 14:29:07 ... if we can recommend for groups, to take advantage of perspectives so ppl can be heard 14:29:17 .. while understanding that jotting things down in a comment is a way that ppl particiapte 14:29:33 ... making sure that someone is in charge of making sure we're not shutting ppl down 14:29:53 ... PWE can't be the communication police. it does fall to chairs. if they find it's a volume of need 14:29:57 ... like editors, there are communication facilitators. 14:30:07 ... for some of the groups to help make sure that conv align w/ Code 14:30:16 ... and productive. i know AG WG chairs are holding a lot 14:30:32 ack me 14:30:32 tzviya, you wanted to comment on chairs' training 14:30:37 Tzviya: i agree. but i may not belong in Code. it may belong in chair's training 14:30:48 ... what i'm hearing is that the concept of dog piling, swarming 14:31:07 ... is important but i hear us creeping toward consensus. this is part of intimidation 14:31:16 Chris: I would still express a counter opinion. I think that 14:31:24 +1 to dogpiling falling under intimidation 14:31:31 ... bc it's about the intersection of multiple ppl. it's a category of intimidation 14:31:35 JenStrickland has joined #pwe 14:31:43 ... you can get into bad patterns, if everyone jumps on someone. if everyone responds 14:32:04 ..it's not always intentional. it's hard to define the line. when conv about whether something belongs in code or chairs training 14:32:18 ... part of code is to set the bar for groups. you should recognize this behavior 14:32:29 ... there's a clear set of 12 ppl who think this one thing. we don't need to jump in 14:32:50 Chris: I don't think what we should put every bad behavior in the Code 14:32:57 ... maybe look at category and if they collapse 14:33:13 Tzviya: i partially agree. i don't know if we added deliberate. i think we might want to remove delineate 14:33:25 +1 to removing "deliberate" from "deliberate intimidation" 14:33:30 ..thtat section w/ details of concern trolling, gish galloping. it is, but sometimes it's not about 14:33:41 q+ 14:33:51 .. sometimes it's not disrupting discussion but it is intimidating. those are the two thoughts. maybe we tweak #9, intimidation 14:34:02 ack JenStrickland 14:34:11 ...and maybe it's not under "disrupting discussion" but not in this category specifically 14:34:16 Jenn: it also shuts down conversation 14:34:35 ... it is intimidation. 14:34:51 Tzviya: Amy asked for a benign example 14:35:00 Jenn: does it ever feel benign to the person experiencing 14:35:25 Tzviya: that happens, exactly, in real time. it can feel constant. eg: 16 messages in one hour. you process at own speed 14:35:45 ... I'll quote "just don't look at in real time". sometimes I can't. sometimes you can't shut off the sound 14:35:53 ... not everyone has the same options 14:35:59 David: looking for consensus 14:36:08 Tzviya: +1 emails. they'd make me crazy 14:36:28 ... the entire WG would respond. you'd get 30 emails on one subject. it's annoying. it can be even a cognitive overload 14:36:44 David: a call for consenus you want ppl to respond 14:36:56 Tzviya: exactly. it's not dogpiling. it's consneus 14:37:02 q+ to disgree with myself re deliberate intimidation 14:37:02 ... different WG do it different ways 14:37:07 ack dbooth 14:37:07 dbooth, you wanted to disgree with myself re deliberate intimidation 14:37:22 David: i agreed w/ comment about removing "intentional" but i have 2nd thoughts 14:37:39 .. one thing I hear often is when ppl join w/ a WG. when there are ppl join and they feel intimidated 14:37:50 ... someone not meaning to be intimidating. like meeting TBL for the 1st time 14:37:57 .. it's hard to figure out 14:38:24 Tzviya: I don't think we need to worry about intimidation in that sense 14:38:47 ... this is tricky. for the other points we say it's the eye of the beholder 14:39:01 .. this whole discussion about how dogpiling is unintentional abut can be intimidating 14:39:06 .. maybe this goes in chair training 14:39:15 q+ to echo a statement from Jenn 14:39:32 Jenn: one of the things, David said something that spartked. there are ppl who 14:39:52 ... are aware of their position. and it can shut down conversation. and it can make it difficult to make progress on work 14:40:14 ... i'm pretty certain there's something in the Code which says invite diverse perspectives. "be humbly curious" 14:40:22 ... one of my mottos is you never know where great ideas come from 14:40:32 "Be inclusive and promote diversity. Seek diverse perspectives. Diversity of views and of people powers innovation, even if it is not always comfortable. Encourage all voices. Help new perspectives be heard and listen actively." 14:40:35 ... it benefits the quality of our work to take this attitude. how do we help our members adopt that 14:40:46 .. in the principles and vision, I think that was behind that 14:41:09 .. .if not explict. culturally there are some ppl that we collaborate with/ in w3C that their way of communicating is more forceful and direct 14:41:24 ... and doesn't invite those perspectives. just something to think about there 14:41:42 Tzviya: we do have something in the code. this is about training. ppl need to want to be trained 14:41:46 ... ppl have to want to change 14:41:55 q- 14:42:56 Tzivya: not sure we came to a conclusion 14:43:14 Amy: I hear points on intimidation and that's worth thinking about. i suspect it will keep coming back 14:43:22 Tzivya: i'm not hearing calls to change 14:43:30 ... Chris I hear some issues are PR 14:43:49 Chris: I filed a PR for 409. needs someone to approve 14:44:17 Tzviya: Elika had asked us to update the ombuds program 14:44:28 ... Sheila, Catrina, Christine and I have a meeting to discuss next week 14:44:37 ... it's been delayed. hopefully rolled out in June 14:44:54 ... hopefully we'll get help w/ this, to update the Guide 14:45:05 ... we'll take down old info and redirect to guide 14:45:15 ... we have the text fairly well written 14:45:49 ... the other part will be rolled out in hopefully July. this will be temporary 14:46:01 i/Elika had asked/Topic: Ombuds program 14:46:05 https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/364 14:46:26 Tzviya: the temporary ombuds will be Catrina and Christine. this is very temporary 14:46:43 ... hopefully Sheila will be able to give an update next time 14:46:53 Topic: Feedback for Chairs training 14:47:17 Tzviya: we've gotten feedback. Chairs training has been poorly attended. Christine said we can make them mandatory 14:47:22 .. hopefully this will give more success 14:47:34 ... dont' know when 1st session will be. we'll build on training done 14:47:52 ...we'v done conflict de-escalation. we've had requests for @ situations 14:48:02 q+ to ask the scope of a potential chairs training requirement 14:48:20 ... the majority of situations I know of ego, disruption. ppl want to know how to handle these in real life 14:48:35 q+ 14:48:43 .. one team asked us to write up a script. if we give a playbook. humans don't follow their part of the script then it won't work. we can give advice 14:49:01 ...we can give scenarios. dogpiling is a great example. we can give examples on how to spot that and how to nip in the bud 14:49:34 ... i went to a school thing on building resilience. "you get what you get, it's not ok to get upset" all feelings are ok but not all behaviors 14:49:49 ack dbooth 14:49:49 dbooth, you wanted to ask the scope of a potential chairs training requirement 14:49:52 ... maybe that's what this comes down to. 14:50:07 David: just to comment on chairs training being mandatory. i like that a lot 14:50:23 q+ to respond to David's CG chairs point 14:50:24 ... i guess this is to WG (Tzivya nods) and I think this should be required for CGs as well. 14:50:26 Nice quote from Tzviya: "All feelings are okay, but not all behaviors" 14:50:37 Tzviya: good question. there's no oversight. few team contacts 14:50:49 ... for an active group, eg: credentials. if there's a team contact we should be able to do it 14:51:24 ack cwilso 14:51:24 cwilso, you wanted to respond to David's CG chairs point 14:51:26 .. if there's not a team contact we may not have have access 14:51:35 Amy: many CGs have team in the group 14:51:56 Chris: it's good to make sure that groups have clear idea of expectations. CGs don't have to operate by consensus 14:52:07 ... they might be a bit more insular community. not as bad as when WG 14:52:23 ... CG can compete for same space. 2 CGs build solution for same problem. and that's alright 14:52:28 s/you get what you get, it's not ok to get upset/you get what you get, and it's ok to get upset 14:52:35 ... so agree but we'll have to be cautious about the difference in how groups function 14:52:36 ack JenStrickland 14:52:55 Jenn: i'm earning a certification in conflict and collaboration. we can pull resources for chairs to use 14:53:08 Jenn: so we have a script, for ppl to go to for info 14:53:18 Tzviya: that would be great, thank you. 14:53:18 q+ to ask why would a team contact be needed, for CG chairs to get the chairs training? 14:53:47 David: i'm puzzled about the Team contact, how that factors in. makes it easier to know if the chair got training 14:53:51 ack db 14:53:51 dbooth, you wanted to ask why would a team contact be needed, for CG chairs to get the chairs training? 14:53:54 .. not sure how that reduces requirement 14:54:04 Tzviya: just that most CG are more casual 14:54:28 ... there are some, fewer than 10, that are at WG levels. I'd be reluctant to require the same as WG - less formality 14:54:38 ... the chairs don't have same exceptions. not the same structure, time commitment 14:55:01 .. there are 10 or fewer which has a similar structure. i can't see requiring though there may still be issues 14:55:13 .. I don't ithkn we can require 14:55:32 David: they don't have the same requirements. In terms of Code, they should have the sAME 14:55:51 q+ 14:55:54 ... same requirements, it should not be ignored 14:56:03 ack JenStrickland 14:56:08 Tzviya: don't want an eneviroment where it's allowed 14:56:21 Jenn: does anyone know of groups w/ issues (amy nods) 14:56:54 Tzviya: maybe a few 14:57:05 amy: i've heard of CGs which parts go to WG and they do have issues 14:58:03 Amy: maybe we want to explore requiring along w/ code and see what happens as an info point 14:58:16 Jenn: maybe requiring attached to zoom use 14:58:19 Tzviya: maybe 14:58:33 David: what do you mean by attached to zoom use 14:58:42 Jenn: if you're a WG you can use zoom 14:58:48 David: enforcement 14:58:51 Jenn: inducement! 14:59:04 Tzviya: here's where Team contact comes in 14:59:09 .. .anything else to add? 14:59:24 ... we will meet in 2 weeks 14:59:33 rrsagent, make minutes 14:59:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/13-pwe-minutes.html amy 15:16:09 zakim, end meeting 15:16:09 As of this point the attendees have been tzviya, JenStrickland, amy, dbooth, cwilso 15:16:11 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 15:16:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/13-pwe-minutes.html Zakim 15:16:18 I am happy to have been of service, amy; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:16:19 Zakim has left #pwe 15:16:38 rrsagent, please excuse us 15:16:38 I see no action items