Meeting minutes
<wendyreid> date: 2026-03-03
<wendyreid> https://
How to be a good participant
dan: Scope of good participant guide?
… Different groups run differently.
<wendyreid> w3c/
wendy: Discussed open issues around inclusive mtg stds.
<wendyreid> w3c/
wendy: Some things don't fit well into CoC -- not neat DO or DONT -- but to be a good citizen, you should be mindful of this.
… Each group might add to a basic version.
dan: Swapping back in the convo around interruptions -- cultural or comm style for some -- but accessibility need for others.
… Still think it's useful to discuss. We'll end up w guidelines rather than CoC level things.
chris: Groups have different MI. The most important thing here is that all participants need to listen to understand others, before making your point, and you need to be respectful.
<DKA7> +1
chris: The basic "You are here to understands other" is imprtant.
… You can't get a half hour of others' time. YOu can get 30 seconds to remind them to be repectful. But the Chairs training is too long.
… Getting participants to follow them is far harder, because they come and go so much.
… Need to figure out how to make it narrow enough to say "this is the expectation", and point back to that if there are failures.
wendy: We'd have to run Participants Training weekly -- not sustainable.
chris: Like CoC reminders at beginning of mtgs. I've seen it done well and done poorly.
… Setting stds for the mtg would be helpful.
… At TPAC it becomes obvious when different groups use differnet queing systems.
… Those things can change how people listen to others. Being brief and directive is probably most important.
dan: Discussed qq+ at the end of AB mtg. Was being overused.
<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to react to cwilso to talk about qq+
dan: Some use it to say "I'm not listening to you, and I have sometihng ver important to say".
… Could we cover it?
… Also, don't think we should tell people how to queue.
<dbooth> +1 to both dan and chris's comments
chris: Culture should be clearer, and how to interact should be clearer.
… qq+ only works alongside other things like strong chairing
… Very context dependent
<DKA7> Something like "these are basics ... (a, b, c) that overlay many groups; here is the space for you to write in what is notable about your group (e.g. we do queuing this way... we take minutes using this tool... etc...)
chris: The doc says it is specificlaly to respond to something.
… And others on the queue should not have already been on the queue for the same reason.
… Agree you cannot set a single way of working for every group.
<DKA7> +1
chris: More about making sure that everyone is getting heard, and the rules support that.
wendy: Tools are neutral. It's how they are used, and chairs are managing them appropriately.
<DKA7> Would formerly acknowledge the fact that different groups can make their own decisions about certain things.
wendy: Chairs training might say "For your group, fill this in to say how the group functions"
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to wonder if qq+ is doing more harm than good
<DKA7> This would also make it easier for new group participants as a lot of people tend to get confused when they see different groups operating in different ways.
dbooth: Having been involved in W3C since 200? I had only heard of qq+ this year, I wonder if its doing more harm than good
wendy: I don't think many people know about it.
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to underscore the tool dbooth is using. :P
chris: There was a tiny period in the AB when it was actualy a useful tool.
… I don't think it should be heavily used.
… Only reason to qq+ is for very trageted points or to respond to someone.
… But if the chair doesn't manage it well, it could easily be abused.
… I wish people would include the topic in the qq+
dbooth: Maybe it should require a topic
… change the syntax requirements
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask chairs here about wrangling vs. group dynamics
amy: Interesting discussion about ways to set up best practices.
… Dynamic I've observed: sometimes aggressive queueing distracts from a good discussion.
… Thoughtful points raised, but if the queue is dominating, pausing sometimes helps instead of following queue
<cwilso> +1
amy: Queue is onely one tool. But what might you suggest to new chairs? qq can be used reasonably and well, but it can become a weapon.
… Queue might not leave time for more thoughtful discussion.
dan: What's the deliverable? Queueing systems shoudl be in this guidance.
… But thinking of a doc saying: Here are the basic things that are true (respectful, listen, adhere to CoC), and here are things the group can decide how to do.
… Some groups use IRC queuing, some use zoom, some used google meet queuing.
… That would make it clearer for participants.
… Up to the group, led by the chair, to decide.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to wonder if we should try to collect more data on qq+ use
wendy: Never seen this stuff written down. Spend the first 10 minutes watching how things happen.
dbooth: I wonder whether considering the syntax rule for qq+ makes sense, maybe collect data on whether its useful
<amy> I find: https://
wendy: The queueing system doesn't get updated often.
… Is there room to improve zakim to accommodate different styles of chairing?
… Some chairs have tried to implement more conversational queueing style
<amy> we do have "q- later" but that's just to the back of the line
wendy: "I want to go after Amy but before Chris"
… We don't have tools that do that.
<amy> i also just find: https://
dbooth: If there were more of a habit to always put the topic in it might be good
wendy: Maybe a "q+ to follow amy"?
dan: Worried about anything that adds too much structure.
… Too much can make people feel like they don't also need to behave like human beings.
… When lifts in a tall building "can I hold the door for you".
… But if you have to enter the floor you want, that pleasantry goes away.
… When tools control too much, the human behavior suffers.
… Chairs might say "we need a strictre form of queuing" or "I think x might have an aswer to that question"
… Worried about introducing tools to enforce a culture.
… rather than guidelines.
wendy: Might want to do a study on this -- interview chairs, or sit in on groups. Don't want to automate to the point of not needing the convo
… Classmate is doing a study on neurodiv people in online mtgs and their struggles.
… One thing they found deeply disturbing is now knowing when to jump in.
… Interesting finding.
dbooth: I often face that dilemma of not knowing when to interrupt, especially in groups of people accustomed to it, it's not natural for me
<amy> "over-talking" is how I've seen that described - some cultures operate in this way that the presumption is that ppl will jump in if/when they want
wendy: Culturally interruption is seen as negative, but also indicates engagement.
… Both can exist.
<amy> when they are interested, as Wendy says. but other cultures wait for their "time to speak" and, of course, there's also cultures with some hierarchy of who speaks
dan: Writing that in the guidelines might help.
<dbooth> +1
dan: Different comm styles. We have mechanisms to try to be respectful, but sometimes it takes extra care.
amy: Some chairs at the end of adiscussion will say "x, do you have anything to add"?
<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to give an example from recent AB chairing
amy: Unsure if that is seen as positive or putting pressure on x.
dan: Because of the different languages and cultures in the AB, in some cases we've started to intro the Q of "are we moving too quickly"?
… Especially if we're in the heat of trying to close github issues, we've had feedback that some are left behind.
<amy> these suggestions could be added to a nice "best practices" or even "practices to consider"
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to menting that going too fast was a problem that Jen mentioned also
dbooth: That was something Jen had brought up, it can happen for a variety of reasons, language etc
wendy: Chairs know these things about the groups, better than anyone.
… Like the idea of having "In your group, please add ..."
amy: One thing I like abt the AB: I've watched AB members suggst sometihng, and others pick up the same thing.
… Willingness to adapt has been very helpful.
… New ways to address different topics.
https://
dan: Issues 440 and 447 don't seem to address creation of these guidelines. Should we add stuff toa wiki? How to push this forward?
wendy: I created the wiki page. People can add to it.
… Also could create an issue for it.
dan: Feels like these minutes could be mined for such guidelines.
wendy: The CoC will always be a work in progress, but some of these nuancy mo-than-one-way things can go in guidance like this.
amy: HOpe the team w work on this: someone on social media pointed out, a spec used out-of-date-lauuage about heteronormative language
… Had to figure out what to do about it. Can we add a line at the top saying "Ths uses outdated language".
… Question is who does it and how?
dan: Could be an AB issue
amy: Or if someone has a name change. DOesn't need approval, its just a quick change.
… Name change is done by request.
<amy> https://
<amy> In-place modification of W3C Technical Reports
amy: Might fit into "In place modification of report". WE might just need so say why the change might happen.
amy: Documents should not use heternormative terminology.
… We also did an accross the board change about preferred language, e.g., no longer use master/slave terms.
<amy> [["For instance, the statement that B is the wife of A obviously implies that B is a woman while A is a man.”]]
<DKA7> oh dear.
ADJOURNED