Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2025-05-13
Code of Conduct
<tzviya> w3c/
Tzviya: I'd like to discuss how we follow up on this.
… I saw some action. Martin was concerned we had no definition for sexuality
… Respec indicates there might be a spelling issue.
Chris: Martin wasn't complaining about the spelling. The red squiggle means it's a defined term.
… but if we remove the <a></a> it will remove the squiggle.
Tzviya: Can you update that?
Chris: Martin responded that we could remove the link (not the word).
Tzviya: Ok to remove the suggestion to define?
[agreement]
Tzviya: We've discussed Code issues in the past. Wendy had previous worked on issues but she's busy
<tzviya> https://
Tzviya: If you take a look at the "CoC-editorial"
… Chris agreed to work on 409.
… For #404 and 405 we discussed these previously. I believe we ended on an agreement.
… I'll do a #405.
Amy: I've heard discussion of #404 (dog-piling).
… I'd be willing to look at this.
Tzviya: Sheila discussed it might be too easy to turn around on someone. The key might be intimidation.
<cwilso> PR#410 fixes #409, will just need an approver to merge.
Amy: I've been trying to pay attention to this to learn more, related to behaviors I've heard about. Also, not specific to this issue, I have heard concerns about issues which are not just about behavior on lists or groups but within the community as a whole.
Chris: I'm happy for Amy to work on this. I think this happens unintentionally.
… Sometimes it happens when someone does a strong rebuttal and others add their own.
… It's probably good to have as an extra term. Maybe "dog-piling" is not the term to use.
Jenn: I agree this is something to be addressed. It sometimes happens in AG WG.
<cwilso> "swarming" might be an acceptable alternative.
Jenn: Where individuals go to social media and link to issues
… and invite comments or make fun of individuals.
… I'm not sure I've seen it getting better.
… 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 conversation to boost the guy.
… Instead of opening the conversation to ask "what do you mean?" or
… seeking to understand another POV. I think that if we don't do that as W3C, we are blocking innovation, blocking diverse perspectives.
… I've heard from many people who are no longer in this group that we're losing participation.
… Maybe we not adding in the CoC to say "we're not trying to bully" but to remind people of the principles.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment that the term dog-piling is iffy
Tzviya: I hear what you're saying. The reason that I have trouble with this and maybe Sheila does too,
… is we have a lot in the section in sustained disruption of discussion:
… concern trolling, sea-lioning, argument ad nauseam, etc. I was hesitant to add more.
… We don't normally name specific behaviors. What makes this different from supportive comments is the intimidation aspect.
… We don't name every single negative behavior.
Tzviya: We may want to add a section about deliberate intimidation. We may not need to add "deliberate" or perhaps maybe we do.
… I agree with Sheila's concerns that this is so easily turned around. If people are having a true technical debate
… and it gets complicated, and therefore lengthy, people could say it's violating the Code.
… We are threading a needle here. The problem we're facing is intimidation and not robustness.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask how to distinguish dog-piling from a helpful indication of support? Intimidation feels like the key differentiator.
David: I think you said what I was going to say. It's often helpful to hear multiple people voicing support for something when looking for consensus.
… 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 definition of "dog-piling" that's hard not to turn around.
... Maybe putting it in more broad references of bad behavior.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to mention habits of repetition
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. This may come from something similar to pushing the elevator button once it's been pushed,
some people might need to "close the loop in their head" by commenting about something that has already been said.
Jenn: From an a11y perspective, one of the struggles of people is when the conversation is go and go and go.
… Something that we try to do in a professional environment 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 conversation."
… 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.
… If we can recommend for groups to take advantage of perspectives so people can be heard
… while understanding that jotting things down in a comment is a way that people participate.
… Making sure that someone is in charge of making sure we're not shutting people down.
… PWE can't be the communication police. It does fall to chairs. If they find it's a volume of need,
… like editors, there are communication facilitators.
… For some of the groups to help make sure that conversation align with the Code
… and are productive. I know AG WG chairs are holding a lot.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on chairs' training
Tzviya: i agree. but i may not belong in Code. it may belong in chair's training
… what I'm hearing is that the concept of dog piling, swarming
… is important but i hear us creeping toward consensus. this is part of intimidation
<dbooth> +1 to dog-piling falling under intimidation
Chris: I would still express a counter opinion. I think that
... because it's about the intersection of multiple people, it's a category of intimidation.
… You can get into bad patterns, if everyone jumps on someone. If everyone responds
… it's not always intentional. It's hard to define the line when there's conversation about whether something belongs in the code or chairs training.
… Part of the Code is to set the bar for groups. To say, "You should recognize this behavior."
… There's a clear set of 12 people who think this one thing. We don't need to jump in.
Chris: I don't think what we should put every bad behavior in the Code.
… Maybe we want to look at the category and if they collapse.
Tzviya: I partially agree. I don't know if we added deliberate. I think we might want to remove deliberate.
<dbooth> +1 to removing "deliberate" from "deliberate intimidation"
Tzviya: That section with details of concern trolling, gish galloping. It is, but sometimes it's not.
… Sometimes it's not disrupting discussion but it is intimidating. Those are the two thoughts. Maybe we tweak #9, intimidation,
… And maybe it's not under "disrupting discussion" but not in this category specifically.
Jenn: It also shuts down conversation.
… It is intimidation.
Tzviya: Amy asked for a benign example.
Jenn: Does it ever feel benign to the person experiencing it?
Tzviya: That happens, exactly, in real time. It can feel constant. For example, if you get 16 messages in one hour. You might process at your own speed.
… I'll quote advice: "just don't look at in real time". But sometimes I can't. Sometimes you can't shut off the sound.
… Not everyone has the same options.
David: Looking for consensus.
Tzviya: +1 emails. They'd make me crazy.
… The entire WG might respond. You'd get 30 emails on one subject. It's annoying. It can be even a cognitive overload.
David: But for a call for consensus, you want people to respond.
Tzviya: Exactly. It's not dog-piling. It's consensus.
… Different WGs do it different ways.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to disagree with myself re deliberate intimidation
David: I agreed with the comment about removing "intentional" but I have second thoughts.
… One thing I hear often is when people join a WG. When people join and they feel intimidated.
… Someone not mean to be intimidating. Like meeting TBL for the 1st time.
… It's hard to figure out.
Tzviya: I don't think we need to worry about intimidation in that sense.
… This is tricky. For the other points we say it's the eye of the beholder.
… This whole discussion about how dog-piling is unintentional but can be intimidating.
… Maybe this goes in Chairs training.
Jenn: One of the things David said, something that sparked. There are people who
… are aware of their position. And it can shut down conversation and it can make it difficult to make progress on work.
… I'm pretty certain there's something in the Code which says invite diverse perspectives. "Be humbly curious".
… One of my mottos is you never know where great ideas come from.
"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."
Jenn: It benefits the quality of our work to take this attitude. How do we help our members adopt that?
… In the principles and vision, I think that was behind that, if not explicit.
… Culturally there are some people that we collaborate with in W3C that their way of communicating is more forceful and direct
… and doesn't invite those perspectives. Just something to think about there.
Tzviya: We do have something in the Code. This is about training. People need to want to be trained;
… people have to want to change.
Tzviya: I'm not sure we came to a conclusion.
Amy: I hear points on intimidation and that's worth thinking about. I suspect it will keep coming back.
Tzviya: I'm not hearing calls to change.
… Chris I hear some issues are pull requests?
Chris: I filed a pull request for 409. It needs someone to approve.
Ombuds program
Tzviya: Elika had asked us to update the ombuds program.
… Sheila, Catrina, Christine and I have a meeting to discuss this next week.
… It's been delayed. Hopefully it will be rolled out in June.
… Hopefully we'll get help with this, to update the Guide.
… We'll take down old info and redirect to the Guide.
… We have the text fairly well written.
… The other part will be rolled out in hopefully July. This first part will be temporary.
Tzviya: The temporary ombuds will be Catrina and Christine. This is very temporary.
… Hopefully Sheila will be able to give an update next time.
Feedback for Chairs training
Tzviya: We've gotten feedback that Chairs training has been poorly attended. Christine said we can make them mandatory.
… Hopefully this will give us more success.
… I don't know when 1st session will be. We'll build on training already done.
… We've done conflict deescalation. We've had requests for @ situations.
… The majority of situations I know of have to do with ego or disruption. People want to know how to handle these in real life.
… One team asked us to write up a script. If we could give a playbook. But if humans don't follow their part of the script then it won't work. We can give advice.
… We can give scenarios. Dog-piling is a great example. We can give examples on how to spot that and how to nip in the bud.
… I went to a school thing on building resilience. One phrase was: "you get what you get, and it's ok to get upset." All feelings are ok but not all behaviors.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask the scope of a potential chairs training requirement
Tzviya: Maybe that's what this comes down to.
David: Just to comment on chairs training being mandatory, I like that a lot.
… I guess this is to WG (Tzviya nods) and I think this should be required for CGs as well.
<dbooth> Nice quote from Tzviya: "All feelings are okay, but not all behaviors"
Tzviya: Good question. There's no oversight in CG, few Team contacts.
… For an active group, eg: credentials, if there's a Team contact we should be able to do it.
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to respond to David's CG chairs point
Tzviya: If there's not a Team contact we may not have have access.
Amy: Many CGs have Team in the groups.
Chris: It's good to make sure that groups have clear idea of expectations. CGs don't have to operate by consensus.
… They might be a bit more insular community so not as bad as when there's a WG.
… CG can compete for same space. 2 CGs building solutions for the same problem. And that's alright.
… So I agree but we'll have to be cautious about the difference in how groups function.
Jenn: I'm earning a certification in conflict and collaboration. We can pull resources for chairs to use.
Jenn: So we have a script, for people to go to for info.
Tzviya: That would be great, thank you.
David: I'm puzzled about the Team contact, how that factors in. It makes it easier to know if the chair got training?
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask why would a team contact be needed, for CG chairs to get the chairs training?
David: I'm not sure how that reduces the requirement.
Tzviya: Just that most CGs are more casual.
… There are some, fewer than 10, that are at WG levels. I'd be reluctant to require the same as WG - there's less formality.
… The chairs don't have same expectations. There's not the same structure, time commitment.
… There are 10 or fewer which has a similar structure. I can't see requiring it for them though there may still be issues.
… I don't think we can require for everyone.
David: They don't have the same requirements. But in terms of Code, they should have the same
… requirements, it should not be ignored.
Tzviya: We don't want an environment where it's allowed.
Jenn: Does anyone know of groups with issues? (Amy nods)
Tzviya: Maybe a few.
Amy: I've heard of CGs where parts go to WG and they do have issues.
Amy: Maybe we want to explore requiring along with agreeding to the Code and see what happens as an info point.
Jenn: Maybe requiring attached to zoom use.
Tzviya: Maybe
David: What do you mean by attached to zoom use?
Jenn: If you're a WG you can use zoom.
David: So enforcement?
Jenn: Inducement!
Tzviya: Here's where Team contact comes in.
… Anything else to add?
… We will meet in 2 weeks.