Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2025-06-24
<amy> regrets from me today
<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
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: If you look at the pull request and go to line 254, there is a lot of discussion
… we have a section called "disciplinary actions" which I overlooked in the creation of the GH document and pull request
… it may need some revision but is close
… this refers to investigation, but we can simplify this to chairs and ombuds
… we don't talk about mediation in this document, we might need to adjust the wording
… we can talk about official warnings, meetings, suspension, and termination, but we need to refer to the process
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say the Disciplinary Actions section looks pretty good
tzviya: reluctant to go into this without the ombuds
dbooth: I think it looks good, needs some editing
… I like the tone, especially line 259 about intent to continue participating, I think it's nice
… in general I think it's pretty good, just editing to clean up
tzviya: Part of the reason I'm hesitant, we might need templates for things like official warnings
tzviya: We might get asked to give chairs templates or trainings, and I'm hesitant to give chairs the tools without training
<dbooth> What about changing "official warning" to just "warning"?
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
JenStrickland: I missed the link, is there a glossary for terms?
… warning vs official warning, consequences
… I think I agree with Wendy on the timeline, taking out mediator doesn't feel quite right, but the ombuds might serve that role
… we need to be clear about the level of consequence
… the paths to resolution or consequences for behaviour, but without the ombuds' involvement it's a bit unknown
… is there a timeline?
tzviya: I'll ask Christine and Catrina, they have been working on things
… I don't want to add a glossary
… mediation will be something the ombuds do
… 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
… I can modify this to make it clear that mediation is part of a process
… the concept of a "disciplinary meeting" sounds very official, but a warning sounds worse than a meeting
<dbooth> +1 to "meeting" instead of "disciplinary meeting"
tzviya: the ombuds would likely schedule a meeting to start, before any warnings or anything
… I'll find out when the new ombuds start, get this prepared in the meantime, and publish after their review
dbooth: Sounds reasonable to me
… is the intent then to do some slight editing, then publish?
… remove mentions of mediators, investigators, and pull this into the other document.
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
… but if the ombuds come in in a month or so, they can fill it in
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
… it's possible we pull it in and counsel disagrees and more editing is needed
tzviya: I'll bring this to Christine and let her decide
… AOB?
<tzviya> wendyreid: What will we do with AB transition? Is there a revision of CoC coming up for AB review?
<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
dbooth: I think it would be good to establish a cadence to update or reaffirm the documents
<cwilso> +1 tzviya
tzviya: I was going to say something different, I don't think we need to review the documents annually, but we do need presence from the AB, we need to work on things like chairs training
JenStrickland: Is there any chance in the new members of the AB joining PWE?
JenStrickland: Having that line of awareness, contribution, would be helpful
<tzviya> wendyreid: we have taken for granted that there has been at least 1 AB member chairing or editing the process and CoC
<dbooth> +1 to liaison idea
<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
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to discuss after other PWE members
<tzviya> wendyreid: everyone agreed that someone should be involved
cwilso: I think there was a clear take that there should be involvement, if the AB is responsible, there should be a connection
… I remember I didn't personally think that an AB member be chair or editor, but should at least be connected
… 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
… I'm not too worried about this happening
… I think we have members of the new AB that will take interest in this work
… this is a better effort to not have deeply embedded in the AB
… 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
… 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
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
… there have been challenges in the past, like in the first major revision, it was a big challenge to communicate the changes
… I don't think that situation was good, where PWE and the AB were relative strangers
… we should have a good relationship
<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
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
… every 6 months or so
cwilso: I agree that PWE and AB should not be strangers
… 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
… getting used to that, who knows what the next AB will do in terms of priorities
… 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
… I'm leery of declaring an official liaison role to PWE, just because we don't do liaisons well as an organization
… I do think doing something like consistent updates or feedback between the groups
… the new guest policy, it might be easy enough to ask to get time on the agenda
… whatever cycle seems rationale, but its possible to drive this from the outside too
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
… the options for PWE/the CoC, we could propose PWE becomes a real group (WG/IG) and takes over in the process
… we could continue as we are and keep a connection with the AB
… we could say the AB runs this directly
… the last option is not the best I think
… the AB changes every year, as tzviya points out
… PWE wants to continue driving this space, but we want to have a connection to the AB
… 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
… ask to join meetings, to give updates
… I plan to keep up with PWE even after the AB
wendyreid: I was here before the AB, I'll be here after the AB
tzviya: Can we talk about the chairs training for a minute?
… I think Wendy and I need a little help
… not afraid to admit that
… it's important, especially with us giving them more authority
dbooth: What kind of help?
<dbooth> wendy: Slides need to be revised. They're in github.
<tzviya> https://
<tzviya> https://
<dbooth> wendy: Maybe David could do an editorial pass?
<dbooth> ... Technically, there's nothing in W3C that makes demands of chairs. No "Chairs must...".
<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.
<dbooth> ... Team needs to decide how to enforce that.
tzviya: I spoke to Christine about this, and she'll send the invites, she'll find a good wording for this
… Wendy, we'll work on timing
… Legal pass of the slides, we just need an editorial one
… one training in August, one in September
… other thing we need to do is include CG chairs, but we can't force them
… I will also try to prioritize
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask Why can't we require it for CG chairs?
tzviya: I'll ask what can we include, if we do it in August we might be able to get the ombuds to review
dbooth: Why can't we require it for CG chairs?
tzviya: Mostly logistics, we don't have a way to contact them asll
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
… if we strongly suggested it, and for CGs that are more formal
tzviya: Credentials CG, is a good example
… 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
… we can't require it in the same way
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
… anything else?
<tzviya> rragent, make minutes