13:50:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:50:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/06/24-pwe-irc
13:51:02 <tzviya> Meeting: PWE
13:51:13 <tzviya> Date: 2025-06-24
13:51:22 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya, Wendy
13:55:36 <amy> regrets from me today
13:56:03 <amy> apologies, there's an event I'm needing to attend to which has a clashing call at this time but it will be done by the next meeting
13:56:29 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:01:17 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
14:01:54 <dbooth> rrsagent, pointer?
14:01:54 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2025/06/24-pwe-irc#T14-01-54
14:01:58 <cwilso> present+
14:02:09 <dbooth> zakim, start meeting
14:02:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:02:11 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
14:03:14 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/guide/blob/19750d9a448dc6693887ed9b4b20838fcc9c9e98/process/coc-incident-resolution-ombuds.md?plain=1#L31
14:05:04 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/364/files
14:05:12 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
14:05:16 <tzviya> present+
14:05:19 <wendyreid> scribe+
14:05:23 <JenStrickland> Present+
14:05:54 <wendyreid> tzviya: If you look at the pull request and go to line 254, there is a lot of discussion
14:06:16 <wendyreid> ... we have a section called "disciplinary actions" which I overlooked in the creation of the GH document and pull request
14:06:41 <wendyreid> ... it may need some revision but is close
14:07:01 <wendyreid> ... this refers to investigation, but we can simplify this to chairs and ombuds
14:07:13 <wendyreid> ... we don't talk about mediation in this document, we might need to adjust the wording
14:07:35 <wendyreid> ... we can talk about official warnings, meetings, suspension, and termination, but we need to refer to the process
14:07:39 <dbooth> q+ to say the Disciplinary Actions section looks pretty good
14:07:43 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:07:43 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say the Disciplinary Actions section looks pretty good
14:07:45 <wendyreid> ... reluctant to go into this without the ombuds
14:07:54 <wendyreid> dbooth: I think it looks good, needs some editing
14:08:10 <wendyreid> ... I like the tone, especially line 259 about intent to continue participating, I think it's nice
14:08:19 <wendyreid> ... in general I think it's pretty good, just editing to clean up
14:08:37 <wendyreid> tzviya: Part of the reason I'm hesitant, we might need templates for things like official warnings
14:08:47 <wendyreid> q+
14:08:57 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:09:02 <wendyreid> tzviya: We might get asked to give chairs templates or trainings, and I'm hesitant to give chairs the tools without training
14:09:16 <dbooth> What about changing "official warning" to just "warning"?
14:10:50 <wendyreid> wendyreid: It really depends on how long we have to hold on until the new ombuds start, if its short, we don't need anything, but if its longer we might need something
14:10:51 <JenStrickland> q+
14:10:56 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:11:15 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: I missed the link, is there a glossary for terms?
14:11:23 <wendyreid> ... warning vs official warning, consequences
14:11:48 <wendyreid> ... I think I agree with Wendy on the timeline, taking out mediator doesn't feel quite right, but the ombuds might serve that role
14:12:02 <wendyreid> ... we need to be clear about the level of consequence
14:12:27 <wendyreid> ... the paths to resolution or consequences for behaviour, but without the ombuds' involvement it's a bit unknown
14:12:29 <wendyreid> ... is there a timeline?
14:12:50 <wendyreid> tzviya: I'll ask Christine and Catrina, they have been working on things
14:12:55 <wendyreid> ... I don't want to add a glossary
14:13:03 <wendyreid> ... mediation will be something the ombuds do
14:13:36 <wendyreid> ... the original document had these roles, in the end we just have the third party, I don't want to make it sound like there's another option out there
14:13:49 <wendyreid> ... I can modify this to make it clear that mediation is part of a process
14:14:06 <wendyreid> ... the concept of a "disciplinary meeting" sounds very official, but a warning sounds worse than a meeting
14:14:11 <dbooth> +1 to "meeting" instead of "disciplinary meeting"
14:14:20 <wendyreid> ... the ombuds would likely schedule a meeting to start, before any warnings or anything
14:14:37 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
14:14:41 <wendyreid> ... I'll find out when the new ombuds start, get this prepared in the meantime, and publish after their review
14:14:44 <JenStrickland> Present+
14:14:49 <wendyreid> dbooth: Sounds reasonable to me
14:15:02 <wendyreid> ... is the intent then to do some slight editing, then publish?
14:15:22 <wendyreid> ... remove mentions of mediators, investigators, and pull this into the other document.
14:15:47 <wendyreid> tzviya: I think I will not merge it at this point, right now the people who have reviewed it have not seen this older version, and the new one is not enough guidance
14:16:04 <wendyreid> ... but if the ombuds come in in a month or so, they can fill it in
14:16:36 <wendyreid> dbooth: I like this older version, the tone is good and might not be too much work to edit it to remove the parts we don't need
14:16:52 <wendyreid> ... it's possible we pull it in and counsel disagrees and more editing is needed
14:17:01 <wendyreid> tzviya: I'll bring this to Christine and let her decide
14:17:30 <wendyreid> ... AOB?
14:19:53 <tzviya> wendyreid: What will we do with AB transition? Is there a revision of CoC coming up for AB review?
14:19:59 <cwilso> q+ for after other PWE members
14:20:07 <dbooth> q+ to say I think it would be a good idea to establish a regular cadence (yearly?  every 2 years?) to reaffirm or update these docs
14:20:22 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
14:20:22 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I think it would be a good idea to establish a regular cadence (yearly?  every 2 years?) to reaffirm or update these docs
14:20:23 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:20:39 <tzviya> q+
14:20:45 <wendyreid> dbooth: I think it would be good to establish a cadence to update or reaffirm the documents
14:20:49 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
14:20:49 <tzviya> ack me
14:21:07 <JenStrickland> Q+
14:21:15 <cwilso> +1 tzviya
14:21:18 <cwilso> q- later
14:21:31 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:21:31 <wendyreid> tzviya: I was going to say something different, I don't think we need to review the documents, but we do need presence from the AB, we need to work on things like chairs training
14:21:56 <tzviya> s/to review the documents/to review the documents annually
14:22:18 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: Is there any chance in the new members of the AB joining PWE?
14:22:19 <wendyreid> q+
14:22:31 <wendyreid> JenStrickland: Having that line of awareness, contribution, would be helpful
14:22:44 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:23:17 <tzviya> wendyreid: we have taken for granted that there has been at least 1 AB member chairing or editing the process and CoC
14:24:53 <dbooth> +1 to liaison ide
14:24:53 <tzviya> ...We are all leaving the AB. A new group is joining the AB, and we never had to think about it before. There was discussion about whether to require chair, member, or liaison
14:24:56 <tzviya> q+
14:25:11 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
14:25:11 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to discuss after other PWE members
14:25:11 <tzviya> wendyreid: everyone agreed that someone should be involved
14:25:18 <dbooth> s/liaison ide/liaison idea/
14:25:28 <wendyreid> cwilso: I think there was a clear take that there should be involvement, if the AB is responsible, there should be a connection
14:25:45 <wendyreid> ... I remember I didn't personally think that an AB member be chair or editor, but should at least be connected
14:26:42 <wendyreid> ... the vision was a product of the AB, they needed to drive it. The process is driven by people with the temperament to deal with the process, and PWE is driven by people who care about a positive work environment, the actual CoC should be at least given a once-over and support of the AB
14:26:49 <wendyreid> ... I'm not too worried about this happening
14:27:42 <wendyreid> ... I think we have members of the new AB that will take interest in this work
14:27:56 <wendyreid> ... this is a better effort to not have deeply embedded in the AB
14:28:23 <wendyreid> ... if the separation is more formal, we can set up something like a cadence where people from PWE go to the AB with items they believe are important
14:29:04 <wendyreid> ... the first major revision of the CoC led to really good discussion and learning on the AB, and I don't think there's a one size fits all solution for the three groups
14:29:23 <tzviya> ack me
14:29:24 <dbooth> q+ to say I don't think we can require the AB to provide a member to PWE, but should request a PWE liaison member
14:30:13 <wendyreid> tzviya: I mostly agree with what Chris said, I think it's important to have a member of the AB participate, if not every week, at least regularly
14:30:35 <cwilso> q+
14:30:52 <JenStrickland> Q+
14:31:03 <wendyreid> ... there have been challenges in the past, like in the first major revision, it was a big challenge to communicate the changes
14:31:20 <wendyreid> ... I don't think that situation was good, where PWE and the AB were relative strangers
14:31:28 <wendyreid> ... we should have a good relationship
14:31:29 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:31:29 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I don't think we can require the AB to provide a member to PWE, but should request a PWE liaison member
14:31:55 <wendyreid> dbooth: I agree, probably one of the most important things is having a kind of liaison, and for PWE being proactive in giving the AB an update
14:31:57 <tzviya> ack cw
14:32:03 <wendyreid> ... every 6 months or so
14:32:15 <wendyreid> cwilso: I agree that PWE and AB should not be strangers
14:32:38 <wendyreid> ... prior to 2020, we were, and I can't remember when the AB got official stewardship of the code in the Process, and it was around that time
14:32:54 <wendyreid> ... getting used to that, who knows what the next AB will do in terms of priorities
14:33:38 <wendyreid> ... we had some priorities in the AB about managing process, maintaining the code, I have some mixed feelings that those of us were on the AB will lose some connection with the new members
14:34:01 <wendyreid> ... I'm leery of declaring an official liaison role to PWE, just because we don't do liaisons well as an organization
14:34:34 <wendyreid> ... I do think doing something like consistent updates or feedback between the groups
14:34:56 <wendyreid> ... the new guest policy, it might be easy enough to ask to get time on the agenda
14:35:15 <wendyreid> ... whatever cycle seems rationale, but its possible to drive this from the outside too
14:35:15 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:37:57 <cwilso> q+
14:38:41 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
14:38:43 <tzviya> ack cwilso
14:39:11 <wendyreid> cwilso: To roll this back to how Wendy introduced this, how we take this back to the AB, we want to make sure there is still a strong connection
14:39:55 <wendyreid> ... the options for PWE/the CoC, we could propose PWE becomes a real group (WG/IG) and takes over in the process
14:40:05 <wendyreid> ... we could continue as we are and keep a connection with the AB
14:40:13 <wendyreid> ... we could say the AB runs this directly
14:40:23 <wendyreid> ... the last option is not the best I think
14:40:37 <wendyreid> ... the AB changes every year, as tzviya  points out
14:40:51 <wendyreid> ... PWE wants to continue driving this space, but we want to have a connection to the AB
14:41:10 <wendyreid> ... I suspect we'll find people passionate enough to join us, and we can also say we'll drive it from the PWE side too
14:41:22 <wendyreid> ... ask to join meetings, to give updates
14:41:48 <wendyreid> ... I plan to keep up with PWE even after the AB
14:41:58 <wendyreid> wendyreid: I was here before the AB, I'll be here after the AB
14:42:06 <wendyreid> tzviya: Can we talk about the chairs training for a minute?
14:42:15 <wendyreid> ... I think Wendy and I need a little help
14:42:20 <wendyreid> ... not afraid to admit that
14:42:39 <wendyreid> ... it's important, especially with us giving them more authority
14:43:01 <wendyreid> dbooth: What kind of help?
14:43:40 <dbooth> wendy: Slides need to be revised.  They're in github.
14:43:57 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/tree/main/RunningBetterMeetings/RunningBetterMeetings_Part1_slides
14:44:04 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/tree/main/RunningBetterMeetings/RunningBetterMeetings_Part2_slides
14:44:09 <dbooth> wendy: Maybe David could do an editorial pass?
14:44:29 <dbooth> ... Technically, there's nothing in W3C that makes demands of chairs.  No "Chairs must...".
14:44:36 <tzviya> q+
14:44:55 <dbooth> ... But when we ran the chairs training, only those interested showed up.  But we want to now say that chairs MUST do the training.
14:45:04 <dbooth> ... Team needs to decide how to enforce that.
14:45:35 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
14:45:52 <wendyreid> tzviya: I spoke to Christine about this, and she'll send the invites, she'll find a good wording for this
14:45:59 <dbooth> q+ to say I might be able to do an editorial pass, depending on the timing of when it's needed.
14:46:01 <wendyreid> ... Wendy, we'll work on timing
14:46:27 <wendyreid> ... Legal pass of the slides, we just need an editorial one
14:47:06 <wendyreid> ... one training in August, one in September
14:47:10 <dbooth> q-
14:47:18 <dbooth> q+ Why can't we require it for CG chairs?
14:47:24 <wendyreid> ... other thing we need to do is include CG chairs, but we can't force them
14:47:35 <wendyreid> ... I will also try to prioritize
14:47:40 <dbooth> q+ to ask Why can't we require it for CG chairs?
14:47:56 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:47:56 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask Why can't we require it for CG chairs?
14:48:02 <wendyreid> ... I'll ask what can we include, if we do it in August we might be able to get the ombuds to review
14:48:14 <wendyreid> dbooth: Why can't we require it for CG chairs?
14:48:25 <wendyreid> tzviya: Mostly logistics, we don't have a way to contact them asll
14:48:54 <wendyreid> cwilso: They're outside the process, it's really hard to impose requirements on them, the point was making them lightweight, everytime we talk about formalizing things they turn into WGs
14:49:09 <wendyreid> ... if we strongly suggested it, and for CGs that are more formal
14:49:30 <wendyreid> tzviya: Credentials CG, is a good example
14:49:58 <wendyreid> ... I'll talk to Ian and Dom who have been doing a lot with CGs, ask them which CGs are feeders or on the precipice of being a WG
14:50:06 <wendyreid> ... we can't require it in the say way
14:50:11 <wendyreid> s/say/same/
14:50:30 <wendyreid> tzviya: I feel like we have a good plan of action, what to do with the AB, and we know where to get started with the chairs training
14:50:38 <wendyreid> ... anything else?
14:51:06 <tzviya> rrsagent, make logs
14:51:06 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs', tzviya.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:51:14 <dbooth> present+
14:51:17 <tzviya> rragent, make minutes
14:51:24 <tzviya> rrsagent, make minutes
14:51:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/06/24-pwe-minutes.html tzviya
19:01:33 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
19:32:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe